In the article, the authors sought the answer to the question what features constitute the biggest differences between the granting procedure and the administrative procedure. For this they used the formal and dogmatic method. This procedure was necessary to formulate the thesis that there is no need to amend the provisions of the procedure for selecting a project co-financed from EU funds. However, the intervention of the legislator requires the method of appealing against decisions during the proceedings. It can also be concluded that the dichotomy in the method of appealing in both types of proceedings is not conducive to the principle of equality of parties to transactions, and the establishment of clear rules relating to appealing against actions taken in such proceedings could strengthen the constitutional right to a court. This dichotomy means that there are two separate regimes for appealing against decisions during the proceedings and after concluding the cofinancing agreement. Therefore, first of all, we should appeal to the legislator to introduce a legal definition of an administrative contract. Next, the legislator should adopt legal norms that would standardize the method of appealing (in the administrative course of proceedings, in administrative or civil courts). Indicating the need to introduce the proposed changes is the main goal of the article.