Niš administrative court denies challenge to grant rejection despite pre-deadline receipt

The administrative court in Niš denied Jelena Vasić’s challenge to the rejection of her household energy grant application as late. She sought to have the rejection set aside and the application considered on its merits, not an automatic grant. The rejection remains in place, with no merits review ordered.

The dispute turned on what a receipt could prove: Vasić relied on a counter receipt dated May 14, one day before the deadline, while the office registered her application on May 16. The court found that timely submission of the complete application had not been established—but did not find that it had definitely arrived late.

The receipt supported an earlier handover of some papers. According to the judgment, however, the evidence did not show that it identified application HE-214, listed its pages or otherwise connected the handover to the complete application. Repeated assertions that the receipt proved timely filing added no evidence about what it covered.

The register had a different limitation. It identified Vasić and HE-214 and recorded entry on May 16, but left the counter-receipt-date field blank. That established when the office entered the application, not when the papers physically arrived.

Neither document filled the decisive gap. The court rejected the register as affirmative proof of late arrival, but explained that weakness in the office’s evidence did not remove Vasić’s obligation to prove timely submission.

The requested remedy was appropriately limited: proven timely filing could support setting aside the rejection and requiring review. Because that condition was unmet, the court declined relief and made no finding about grant eligibility.

Vasić’s side argued that she submitted the application on May 14 and should not bear the consequences of later office processing. It relied on the stamped receipt and the principle that administrative decisions need support in the record.

The Household Energy Grant Review Office acknowledged the receipt’s earlier date but disputed whether it covered the complete application. It said no further record or witness was available to confirm that connection and conceded that its register did not prove when the papers reached the counter.

The office initially asked the court to deny or limit relief. It accepted that, if timely filing were established, the rejection should be set aside and merits review ordered—but stressed that this would not establish entitlement to a grant.

The application deadline was May 15. Vasić relied on the May 14 counter handover; the office recorded HE-214 on May 16 and subsequently rejected it as late.

The decision preserves the distinction between submission and internal registration. It does not endorse the later register date as proof of late filing. The challenge failed because the evidence did not establish what the earlier handover contained, leaving both the actual submission date of the complete application and Vasić’s underlying eligibility unresolved.