The private entrepreneur received a state grant, but in the course of developing her business, she faced an inconsistent position of a government authority. The entrepreneur followed the advice of the program administrator at the employment center, yet her actions were later interpreted as violations. The situation posed risks not only for the entrepreneur herself but also threatened to undermine trust in state programs supporting business.
One of the grant conditions was the creation of two job positions. Due to massive attacks and prolonged power outages, she was forced to abandon her initial business plans for offline sales, including expanding the number of jobs.
To act properly, the entrepreneur sought official advice from the city employment center. An official explained that it was possible to employ one person and keep the unused grant funds in a special account for repayment. No changes to the business plan or additional applications were required. The entrepreneur faithfully followed this guidance: she hired one employee, returned the remaining funds, and underwent several inspections without any remarks.
Later, the regional employment center changed its position: it informed her that the second job position still had to be created and advised her to at least temporarily hire another employee “for the record.” To avoid risks, the entrepreneur created the second position and employed another worker. The next inspection confirmed full compliance with the conditions.
Despite this, the same authority later drew up an act citing “violations” — allegedly, the job creation deadlines were missed, contributions were paid incorrectly, and part of the funds was misused. These conclusions contradicted earlier inspection reports and the official advice provided before.
Disagreeing with these findings, the entrepreneur turned to the Business Ombudsman Council. The Council carefully examined the circumstances and emphasized to the state authorities the importance of adhering to the principle of good governance. If an authority provides official clarifications, responsibility for its mistakes cannot be shifted to an entrepreneur who acted in good faith. The Council’s inspectors also stressed that contradictory behavior was unacceptable: first the authority approved the entrepreneur’s actions, and then declared those same actions unlawful.
Following the Council’s intervention, the regional employment center recognized that the grant conditions had been fully met. The State Employment Center confirmed the absence of any claims, and the case was closed in favor of the complainant.
