The purpose of this article was an attempt to identify and evaluate normative regulations defining the procedure for the return of EU funds under Polish law in the 2014–2020 financial perspective and to investigate whether this procedure enables the effective recovery of EU funding paid to beneficiaries in an unjustified manner. The research was based on the example of the Regional Operational Program for Podlaskie Voivodeship 2014–2020 and covered the years 2014–2021. The essential elements of the return procedure are regulated in Art. 207 of the Public Finance Act. As regards the decision to return the cofinancing from EU funds, the beneficiaries had the right to use the appeal procedure. Subsequently, they had the opportunity to lodge a complaint with the competent voivodeship administrative court, as well as a cassation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. The legal situation shaped in this way resulted in a low percentage of decisions discontinuing the proceedings, which was not favourable from the point of view of the beneficiaries. The rigorous nature of the procedure for the return of EU funds was to some extent offset by the judicial activity of administrative courts.

The purpose of this study was to present the results of research on the provisions of the Act on the principles of implementing tasks financed from European funds in the 2021–2027 financial perspective in the scope of the appeal procedure against negative project evaluation. The aforementioned legal regulation should be assessed critically as the applicant has a very weak position in the appeal procedure. Applicants applying for support from EU sources in a non-competitive procedure are excluded from the possibility of re-verification of the instance evaluation of their projects, which may be perceived as inconsistent with Art. 78 of the Polish Constitution. Moreover, limiting the applicants' right to lodge a protest in a competitive procedure by the fact that launching the appeal procedure does not suspend concluding co-financing agreements with applicants whose projects have been selected for co-financing, results in depriving the real possibility of re-verifying the evaluation of some projects. In addition, the scope of administrative court control limited by the legislator to verification of the legality of the negative assessment of the project raises doubts as to its compliance with the requirement of effectiveness of the appeal measure specified in Art. 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The purpose of this article was an attempt to identify normative regulations defining the principles of determining and imposing financial corrections in in the financial perspective 2014–2020 examining the rules for verifying the correctness of awarding contracts involving public funds by beneficiaries implementing projects cofinanced from structural funds and the application of financial corrections based on the example of the Regional Operational Programme for Podlaskie Voivodship 2014–2020. Beneficiaries implementing projects co-financed from the EU budget are subject to a special regime for applying the public procurement law. Its source is both the provisions of EU and national law, and the guidelines of the minister responsible for development, which are not a source of universally applicable law. The legal situation shaped in this way results in a high percentage of public procurement procedures carried out by beneficiaries which are questioned by competent institutions by way of control. A drawback from the point of view of the protection of the rights of beneficiaries is excessive normative complexity of the return procedure applicable also to the implementation system of ROPPV 2014–2020. This procedure is composed of two stages, i.e. determining and imposing financial corrections (with the exclusion of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure), and then the appropriate administrative procedure for the return of funds. However, the possibility provided in national law to measure the amount of financial corrections depending on the nature and seriousness of individual irregularities should be assessed positively.