PNDR sub-measure 6.4 — the 90% intensity, the de minimis ceiling and what remains of it

Three limits worked at the same time on this sub-measure. The first was intensity: non-repayable support covered at most 90% of the project's total cost, the rest falling to the beneficiary. The second was the absolute ceiling: EUR 200,000 per beneficiary, calculated over 3 fiscal years. The third was the cumulation rule of Regulation no. 1407/2013 on de minimis aid, which applies not to a single project but to all aid of that type received in the window.

The order of checks mattered. A project could respect the intensity and still breach the ceiling if the firm had already received de minimis on another line. That is why, on any de minimis scheme, the first calculation is not the project budget but the company's aid history.

The difference up to 100% of project cost was private co-financing. The set published by AFIR contained a dedicated document for it, the undertaking on the use of private co-financing — a technical detail that says a lot about how the line was assessed: the ability to carry the own share had to be demonstrated, not mentioned in passing.

For a software budget the consequence is direct. In a EUR 150,000 project, roughly EUR 15,000 had to come from own resources, and the digital component competed for that money with machinery, works and vehicles. A realistic software budget, split into stages, defends itself far more easily than a single global figure.

Unlike 6.2, where the central document was the business plan, on 6.4 annex 2 was the feasibility study. The difference is not bureaucratic: a feasibility study demands a technical description of the investment, a justification of its sizing and cost estimates that survive verification, not a narrative about the market.

That is where the digital component belonged — a guesthouse booking system, a repair shop's scheduling application, a small producer's online store — described as functionality, interfaces and volumes rather than as a budget heading. Our recommendation is unchanged on today's lines: the software specification is drafted by the supplier and annexed, not improvised in the body of the document.

The previous version of this page presented intervention DR-29 as the direct continuation of sub-measure 6.4, with support again of up to EUR 200,000. We have withdrawn that claim. On 30 July 2026 the corresponding detail address on the AFIR portal returns an error, and the list of investment interventions verified the same day — DR 15, DR 16, DR 19, DR 20, DR 22, DR 23, DR 25, DR 26, DR 27, DR 28, DR 30, DR 33 and sub-measure 4.1 — contains no equivalent of the non-agricultural activities line.

The correct wording is therefore this: we could not confirm a national successor under a dedicated code. Anyone looking for a route today has two things to check, both at source — the current intervention nomenclature published by AFIR and the strategy of the Local Action Group covering the locality, because LEADER calls set their conditions and ceilings locally.

We prefer a page that says what it does not know to one that propagates a plausible code. A firm building its plan on a non-existent intervention loses an entire preparation season.

Northdan Soft is a software supplier, not a funding consultant. We do not draft the funding application, we do not produce the feasibility study, we do not assess a company's eligibility and we promise no project approval. Nor do we issue offers that artificially pad a dossier: on investment schemes, offers suspected of being formalities are exactly what evaluators look for.

What we deliver is narrower and more useful: the functional specification of the digital component, the dated technical offer, the budget broken down by cost category, the implementation and the acceptance documents required at reimbursement. For a rural project that usually means a website or online store, an order or booking system and the integrations with financial records.