Statement of the law firm PORTOS regarding the decision of the European Commission in the matter of non-entitlement subsidies

In early September 2026, the European Commission temporarily suspended the payment of a portion of agricultural subsidies intended for companies within the Agrofert holding group from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. The amount in question is approximately 3.18 million euros for the second quarter of this year. The Commission justified its move by stating that, in its view, the transfer of Agrofert shares to the RSVP Trust does not sufficiently address the potential conflict of interest involving Prime Minister Andrej Babiš. Jaromír Císař, a owner at the law firm PORTOS, commented on the legal implications:

At this moment, nothing changes about our legal standpoint. The prepared assessment was based on documents and information that we had available at the time, and in the regime of independent administration of the trust fund, we did not find facts that would be in conflict with Czech legal regulations. Moreover, the European Commission has so far (unlike in the past) also not inferred an inconsistency with the domestic legal framework.

At the same time, from the beginning we anticipated that the European Commission would want to independently review the structure also according to European rules. Already in June I publicly stated that I expected further review. And that has now happened. However, the current procedure of the Commission does not yet include any definitive legal conclusion that the solution adopted by Ing. Babišem is insufficient in terms of the legal framework on conflict of interest; it only refers to a potential conflict of interest. It is therefore necessary to await the final conclusions of the Commission. Nevertheless, it can reasonably be expected that until the announcement of the final conclusion of its review, the Commission will not lift the suspension of payments of non-entitlement subsidies from the EU budget.

Therefore, when interpreting the Commission's conclusions, it is important to distinguish between the individual types of subsidies. The current procedure of the Commission applies (as before) exclusively to non-entitlement subsidies provided through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. In the case of entitlement subsidies (direct agricultural payments), it did not proceed with the suspension of payments. The spokesperson of the Commission, Louise Bogeyová, stated yesterday in response to the questions posed that the different approach is justified by the fact that direct payments are granted "automatically" based on predetermined criteria. There is therefore no competition among individual applicants for subsidies that could be endangered by a conflict of interest. In this respect, the Commission thus confirms the conclusions of our legal analysis, that a potential conflict of interest may only concern the provision of non-entitlement subsidies.