Your Kit Digital agent failed and Red.es wants the money back

The case, in five lines

What is brought

Against Red.es, submissions in response to the opening decision for loss of the right to payment and clawback (art. 38 of the grant rules; art. 94 RLGS) and, once the decision is issued, an optional administrative appeal for reconsideration (recurso potestativo de reposición) or judicial review (recurso contencioso-administrativo) seeking its annulment or a reduction of the amount on grounds of proportionality (art. 36.4 of the grant rules; art. 37.2 LGS). Against the digitalisation agent, a civil claim for breach of the contract and of the Acuerdo de Prestación: compensation for whatever Red.es demands from you and for other losses, or termination with restitution and compensation (arts. 1101 and 1124 of the Civil Code).

Before which court

Submissions go to Red.es on its platform; the decision is taken by the granting body, the President of Red.es, or by whoever acts under delegated powers. Against the decision, an administrative appeal for reconsideration (reposición) before the same body or judicial review (recurso contencioso-administrativo) before the court named in the statement of appeal rights at the end of the decision; for a State entity with competence across Spain such as Red.es, that is the administrative-law section (sección de lo contencioso-administrativo) of the Tribunal Central de Instancia, the central first-instance court that replaced the former Juzgados Centrales de lo Contencioso-administrativo (art. 9.1.c LJCA and first additional provision of Organic Law 1/2025). Against the agent, the civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia (the first-instance court), as a rule the one for the agent's domicile, after the attempt at negotiation required by article 5 of Organic Law 1/2025.

Deadline

Submissions: fifteen working days from notification by electronic access on the platform (art. 38.2 of the grant rules; art. 94.2 RLGS). Red.es must notify its decision within twelve months of the date of the opening decision, unless that period is suspended or extended, or the procedure lapses (art. 42.4 LGS), and its right is time barred four years after the justification deadline expired (art. 39 LGS). Appeals: one month for the appeal for reconsideration (reposición) or two months for judicial review, from the day after notification (art. 124.1 LPAC; art. 46.1 LJCA). Against the agent: five years (art. 1964.2 of the Civil Code), counted, as a precaution, from its breach; if negotiation fails, one year to file the claim (art. 7.3 of Organic Law 1/2025).

Who can bring it

As against Red.es, the proper party is the beneficiary holding the voucher, even though the agent collected the money under an assignment (arts. 21.7 and 31.1 of the grant rules; art. 40.1 LGS), together with, where applicable, anyone liable alongside it: the co-owners of a comunidad de bienes (joint ownership business), jointly and severally in proportion to their share; directors who failed to do what was needed to comply, on a secondary basis; and the shareholders of a dissolved and liquidated company, up to their liquidation share (art. 40 LGS). Against the agent, the beneficiary, as a party to the contract and the Acuerdo, sues the participating company that signed them.

Financial risk

If you do not respond or you lose, you repay what the agent collected in your name, with late-payment interest from that payment (arts. 37.1 and 38.2 LGS), and without payment or suspension the debt ends up in enforced collection (art. 38.1 LGS). While you owe a clawback that is neither deferred nor suspended, Red.es does not make payments under your other Acuerdos (art. 23.3 of the grant rules; art. 34.5 LGS) and you will have to pay those agents yourself (art. 23.4). Losing a court case may mean an order to pay costs. Against the agent, the real risk is its solvency, and it is checked before suing.

The agent got the money, but the debt is yours

Kit Digital is closed to new applications: the last calls closed on 31 October 2025 and Order TDF/39/2026 does not reopen it. What is still live is the tail end of the vouchers already granted, and their grant rules (Order ETD/1498/2021, as amended) govern each file until it is closed, 'including any clawback procedures' (art. 4, as amended by that order). Under that scheme you never received the voucher: by signing each Acuerdo de Prestación (solutions agreement) you assigned to the agent the right to collect that part (arts. 18.4 and 21.7), and Red.es paid the agent directly, phase by phase, after the Cámara de Comercio de España (the Spanish Chamber of Commerce), as the partner entity, had checked the justification (art. 23).

The assignment moved the money, not the responsibility. Article 31.1 of the grant rules says that the beneficiaries are ultimately responsible for the justification, and article 31.2 that the agent files it 'on behalf of the beneficiary'. If the deadline passes without justification, Red.es requires the agent to file it within a non-extendable period of fifteen days, informing you, and if it is still not filed, article 31.5 requires the clawback to be claimed from the beneficiary. Article 40 of the General Grants Act (LGS) lists those obliged to repay as the beneficiaries, the partner entities and those liable alongside them; the agent is not on that list, and the model Acuerdo for segment III expressly releases Red.es and the partner entity from liability.

Against the agent, the grant rules provide for other consequences: Red.es may withdraw all its solutions from the programme, after giving it five days to be heard, 'without prejudice to the clawback and the imposition of sanctions' (art. 10.7), and apply the contractual penalties set in the Acuerdo (art. 31.5). There is no record of Red.es collecting from an agent what it claims from the beneficiary, so it is not wise to count on it. This is what nobody tells you: arguing that the agent was at fault is no defence against Red.es, because clawback punishes not fault but objective non-compliance. The effective defence is to dispute the amount and prove that you did your part; the agent is made to pay for its fault on another front.

What is claimed depends on the phase that failed

Each Acuerdo has two phases. The first lasts at most three months from validation of the Acuerdo, during which the agent installs the solution and issues the invoice, with your prior approval (art. 22.2.a); the second lasts twelve months from the date of that invoice (art. 22.2.b). The justification for phase 1 is due six months after validation, and for phase 2, three months after that phase ends (art. 31.4, as amended by Order ETD/734/2022). Your payment of the non-subsidised part of the invoice must be proved within that same period (art. 31.6.c).

According to Red.es's guide for beneficiaries, if phase 1 is not justified the right to payment of the whole amount of the Acuerdo is lost: Red.es has paid nothing and there is no clawback, but the agent goes unpaid and will want you to pay. If phase 2 is what is missing, Red.es claims back what it paid the agent for phase 1 and declares the right to payment for phase 2 lost. The grant rules treat failure to complete the phases on time as a breach (art. 36.2.c), and if you signed several Acuerdos, the failure of one is a partial breach (art. 36.3).

Interest is what surprises people most. It runs from the day Red.es paid the agent, a date you may not even know, until the clawback is decided or until you pay, if that is earlier (art. 37.1 LGS), at the statutory interest rate increased by 25 %, unless the Budget Act sets a different rate (art. 38.2 LGS): in 2026, 4.0625 % according to the Agencia Tributaria (the Spanish tax agency). Other routes lead to the same result: withdrawing from an Acuerdo after the first payment without voluntarily returning what was paid opens a clawback (art. 35.2), and the extinction of the beneficiary, such as that of your company once it has been dissolved and liquidated, means losing what is pending and repaying what was paid with interest (art. 39).

Reduced loss of the right to payment: invoice, payment and publicity

Not every breach costs the whole voucher. Article 36.4 of the grant rules sets the clawback for breach of the publicity obligation at 10 % of the aid granted, that is, for not mentioning the European funding with the Union emblem and the funding statement required by article 34.3. And Red.es's guide applies a reduced loss (pérdida minorada) of 1 % for each month of delay, up to 7 %, where the invoice was issued or paid late, modelled on the late-filing surcharges of the General Tax Act. The two add up: in the guide's own example, a voucher of 3,000 euros loses 450.

That 1 to 7 % scale is not written into the Kit Digital grant rules, which only set the 10 % for publicity and the principle of proportionality; it does appear, for example, in the rules for Kit Consulting (arts. 36.4 and 36.5 of Order TDF/436/2024), which has also been closed to new applications since 31 March 2025. So the first step is to check in your call for applications (convocatoria) where the percentage comes from, how the months were counted and from what date. The second is whose delay it was: the agent issues the invoice within phase 1 (art. 22.2.a), so a late invoice is down to the agent; paying your share is up to you (art. 31.6.c); publicity binds both (art. 34.3).

The amount can also be challenged under the general rule. Article 36.4 of the grant rules and article 37.2 LGS require the amount to be reduced proportionately where performance comes significantly close to full and you prove conduct unequivocally aimed at compliance. In the clinic's case, a website that worked for ten of the twelve months of phase 2, paid invoices, signed approvals and emails urging the agent to file the justification are exactly that conduct. Claiming everything paid in phase 1 as if the solution had never existed is the first weak point of the opening decision, and it is attacked with figures: months of service, amounts and dates.

Responding on the platform: fifteen days and your part, documented

The grant rules require everything relating to justification, loss of the right to payment and clawback to be notified by electronic access at the e-office (art. 26.3), and in practice the notification reaches the inbox of the Red.es platform. According to its guide, if you do not open it within ten calendar days it is deemed served, and from then on you have fifteen working days to respond (art. 38.2 of the grant rules; art. 94.2 of the Grants Regulation, RLGS). Submissions are filed in the section for submissions against loss of the right to payment on the platform itself, signed with an electronic certificate or Cl@ve (the State electronic identification system). The twelve-month lapse and the four-year limitation work as in any clawback, and we have already explained them in our guide on repaying grants.

Red.es's guide warns that new documents filed with the submissions will not be taken into account. But that guide states that it is for information only, and the grant rules (art. 38.2) and the regulation (art. 94.2 RLGS) recognise the right to make submissions and file documents. They should be filed anyway: proof of payment of your share, your approval, dated screenshots of the solution working and the emails with the agent. If Red.es does not assess them, the decision is vulnerable on appeal. And if what you have received is still a request for documents, that is the time to supply whatever is missing, because the documents are still part of the justification.

There are three arguments specific to Kit Digital: that Red.es failed to give the warning required by article 31.5, which obliges it to send the agent a formal request and inform you before any clawback; that the amount is disproportionate or the reduction miscalculated; and that you did everything within your control. The grant rules allow a voluntary representative for the application and the management of the aid (art. 27.3); if the platform does not let us act for you in that section, you sign the document we leave ready with your Cl@ve or your certificate, and we guide you through each step. You never have to hand us your certificate.

After the decision: appeal, collection and the effect on your other Acuerdos

The clawback decision ends the administrative route (art. 42.5 LGS). You may lodge an optional administrative appeal for reconsideration (recurso de reposición) with the same body within one month, which Red.es must decide within a further month (arts. 123 and 124 of Law 39/2015, LPAC), or seek judicial review (recurso contencioso-administrativo) within two months (art. 46.1 LJCA); if you appeal for reconsideration, judicial review must wait until that appeal is decided or deemed dismissed (art. 123.2 LPAC). Red.es is a State entity with competence across Spain, so, unless the statement of appeal rights at the end of the decision says otherwise, the claim is heard by the administrative-law section (sección de lo contencioso-administrativo) of the Tribunal Central de Instancia, the central first-instance court that replaced the former Juzgados Centrales de lo Contencioso-administrativo (art. 9.1.c LJCA). The prior negotiation under article 5 of Organic Law 1/2025 is not required here, as it is specific to civil proceedings.

Appealing does not stop collection: suspension is sought with the appeal and, if it is not decided within a month, it is deemed granted, although security may be required (art. 117 LPAC). The debt is public-law revenue and, without payment or suspension, it ends up in enforced collection (art. 38.1 LGS). What almost nobody sees coming is the effect on the rest of your voucher: while you owe money under a clawback decision, Red.es cannot make payments under your other Acuerdos (art. 23.3 of the grant rules; art. 34.5 LGS), and if payment is not made for that reason, it is you who must pay the agents of those other Acuerdos their costs (art. 23.4). The regulation treats a debt that is deferred, split into instalments or suspended as being up to date (art. 21.2 RLGS).

Paying the undisputed part does not prevent you from fighting the rest, and it is sometimes the most cost-effective course. Voluntary repayment, without waiting for a demand, is provided for in the grant rules (art. 35.5) and stops interest on the date of payment (art. 37.1 LGS); Red.es publishes a guide on its e-office explaining how to do it. If the opening decision has weak points, you respond and appeal; if it has none, repaying early cuts the interest, unblocks the rest of the voucher and fixes to the cent the loss you will claim from the agent. In a comunidad de bienes (joint ownership business), the co-owners are jointly and severally liable in proportion to their share, and in a company, directors who failed to do what was needed are secondarily liable (art. 40 LGS).

Claiming against the agent: contract, Acuerdo and prior negotiation

There is no administrative route against the agent: the Acuerdo de Prestación is a private contract, which Red.es's model calls a 'private agreement' (Acuerdo privado), and it is signed on the basis of a prior contract with the agent (art. 30.4). The grant rules make the breach easier to prove: the agent undertook to cooperate in the justification and to file it (arts. 10.3.d and 30.3.b) and to keep all the supporting documents on your behalf for four years (art. 40), and article 31.5 itself says that failing to justify is also a breach of the Acuerdo. If it stopped providing the service early, it also failed to perform phase 2 (art. 22.2.b).

The cause of action lies in the Civil Code. Whoever is negligent in performing their obligations or in any way contravenes their terms is liable for the loss (art. 1101), and in a contract with reciprocal obligations you may demand performance or termination, with compensation in both cases (art. 1124). The contract also binds the parties to what good faith requires (art. 1258). The grant rules provide that the Acuerdo should set the compensation for both parties (art. 30.3.e), but Red.es's model only provides that you pay the agent if the loss is down to you; compensation in your favour comes from the law. The claim covers whatever Red.es demands from you, with interest, the reduction the agent caused, what you paid for a service that was not provided and the cost of replacing the solution.

Before suing, negotiation must be attempted on a clearly defined subject matter: it is a precondition for bringing a civil claim (art. 5 of Organic Law 1/2025), and it is met by direct negotiation between lawyers, which we conduct. The request interrupts limitation, which starts again if there is no written reply within thirty calendar days, and if negotiation fails there is one year to file the claim (art. 7 of Organic Law 1/2025) before the civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia (the first-instance court). The general period is five years (art. 1964.2 of the Civil Code); count it from the agent's breach, not from Red.es's decision. And check your own part first: if the loss was down to you, it is the agent who can claim its costs from you (arts. 23.4 and 30.3.d).

How we run the case, step by step

1. 1

   Download the file and pin down the dates

   The full notification and the history of each Acuerdo are downloaded from the platform: validation, invoice, justifications, requests and payments to the agent. Those dates are used to calculate the fifteen working days to respond, the twelve-month lapse from the opening decision (art. 42.4 LGS), the four-year limitation period (art. 39 LGS) and the five years for claiming against the agent (art. 1964.2 of the Civil Code).

2. 2

   Demand the documents from the agent and open negotiation

   A burofax (a certified letter with proof of content) asks the agent for the supporting documents it keeps on your behalf (art. 40 of the grant rules) and proposes that it bear what Red.es claims. If it defines the subject properly, even if the amount is adjusted later, that same letter opens the negotiation required by article 5 of Organic Law 1/2025 and interrupts limitation from the recorded attempt at delivery (art. 7.1).

3. 3

   Respond within the fifteen days with your part documented

   The amount, the reduction and proportionality are disputed (art. 36.4 of the grant rules; art. 37.2 LGS), it is checked whether Red.es served a formal request on the agent and informed you (art. 31.5), and your evidence is filed even if Red.es's guide says it will not assess it (art. 38.2). If the platform does not accept us as your representative, you sign the document we leave ready with your Cl@ve.

4. 4

   Appeal or pay without blocking the rest of the voucher

   Once the decision is issued, an administrative appeal for reconsideration (reposición) is lodged within one month with an application for suspension (arts. 124 and 117 LPAC), or judicial review (recurso contencioso-administrativo) is sought within two months before the court named in the statement of appeal rights in the decision, in principle the administrative-law section of the Tribunal Central de Instancia. If there is no defence, the amount is paid to stop the interest and unblock your other Acuerdos (art. 23.3 of the grant rules).

5. 5

   Quantify the loss and check the agent's solvency

   The heads of loss are added up, each backed by its document: what Red.es demands with its interest, the reduction attributable to the agent, what was paid for a service not provided and the cost of replacing the solution. Before going further, it is checked that the agent is still trading and able to pay: if it has closed down or is in insolvency proceedings (concurso), the route changes.

6. 6

   Sue the agent in time

   If negotiation fails, the claim is filed before the civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia within the year set by article 7.3 of Organic Law 1/2025 and always within the five years of article 1964.2 of the Civil Code, seeking compensation under article 1101 or termination with damages under article 1124, with the platform history and the Acuerdo as the core evidence.

The law that applies

• Art. 31 Orden ETD/1498/2021. The Kit Digital grant rules make beneficiaries ultimately responsible for the justification, which the agent files on their behalf within the periods in paragraph 4 (six months from validation for phase 1 and three months from its end for phase 2, as amended by Order ETD/734/2022); if it is not filed, the agent is required to file within fifteen days with notice to the beneficiary, and failure leads to clawback demanded from the beneficiary and is also a breach of the Acuerdo. BOE-A-2021-21873
• Arts. 21 y 23 Orden ETD/1498/2021. Signing the Acuerdo de Prestación assigns to the agent the right to collect that part of the voucher, and Red.es pays the agent for each phase after checking it; the beneficiary must be up to date and not owe any clawback at each payment, and if payment cannot be made for that reason, the beneficiary pays the agent the costs incurred. BOE-A-2021-21873
• Arts. 36 y 38 Orden ETD/1498/2021. Failing to complete the phases on time is a breach; partial breach is assessed proportionately, and the clawback for breach of the publicity obligation is fixed at 10 % of the aid. The opening decision for loss of the right to payment or clawback states the ground, the obligations and the amount, grants fifteen days to make submissions and file documents, and the granting body's decision must be notified within twelve months. BOE-A-2021-21873
• Art. 37 LGS. Lists the grounds for clawback, including failure to meet the justification obligation, with late-payment interest from payment until the clawback is decided or until repayment if earlier, and requires the amount to be reduced proportionately where performance comes significantly close to full and there is conduct unequivocally aimed at compliance. BOE-A-2003-20977
• Art. 40 LGS. Makes beneficiaries and partner entities liable to repay, with interest; makes co-owners jointly and severally liable in proportion to their share, directors who failed to do what was needed to comply secondarily liable, and shareholders of a dissolved and liquidated company liable up to their liquidation share. BOE-A-2003-20977
• Arts. 1101 y 1124 CC. Whoever is guilty of wilful misconduct, negligence or delay, or in any way contravenes the terms of their obligations, is liable for the loss; in reciprocal obligations, the injured party may demand performance or termination, with damages and interest in both cases. BOE-A-1889-4763
• Art. 1964 CC. Personal actions with no special period are time barred five years after performance of the obligation can be demanded. BOE-A-1889-4763
• Arts. 5 y 7 LO 1/2025. In civil cases, a claim is admitted only if an appropriate dispute resolution method was attempted first, including direct negotiation between the parties or their lawyers; the request interrupts limitation and, failing agreement, the claim must be filed within one year. BOE-A-2025-76

Each article checked against the consolidated text published in the BOE (the Spanish official gazette).

Frequently asked questions