Even though a farmer had already won a landmark case before the summer holidays this year regarding subsidies for his climate-friendly barn, which he built almost 10 years ago, he had to go through a “renewed processing”, which also had to be won.
The Danish AgriFish Agency, which is part of the Ministry of Green Transition, chose to handle the “renewed processing” in such a way that the EU requirements that the farmer had to meet from the time of payment were considered to have to be met now, i.e. almost a decade later. This interpretation was contrary to EU law. “Renewed processing” only means processing the original application based on the circumstances that existed at that time.
The Agency’s interpretation is therefore equivalent to handling “renewed processing” of the old application as if it were a new application that is only being submitted now. Viewed in this way, the temporal scope of the requirements that the farmer had to meet in order to get his money would be extended “indefinitely”.
The Agency’s point of view was therefore clearly in conflict with the requirement of predictability, which stems from the EU legal principle of legal certainty.
For the farmer, it is only predictable to have to comply with the EU requirements for a number of years after the application is submitted. It is not predictable to have to comply with them for the same number of years after winning a case several years later and having it remanded for renewed processing.
The Danish AgriFish Agency therefore had to withdraw its point of view, abandon its consultation, withdraw its police report, make a new decision that ruled in favor of the farmer, and deposit a preliminary amount of just over 4 million in his account after many years of dispute with the Agency.
Now the battle awaits regarding, among other things, interest. It is Sønderby Legal’s view that the farmer – and all other farmers who have money owed for EU subsidies – should receive interest on their claims. As everyone knows, there is a law that when the public sector has a claim for payment, interest accrues. The law is not formulated in the same way when the farmer has money owed. But that does not change our point of view in favor of the farmer.
In our opinion, it follows from the EU law principle of effectiveness that the Danish state must effectively compensate him for the losses he has suffered along the way. That is to say, he is entitled to interest just like the public sector in the opposite situation.
The farmer is not to blame for the long processing time and should therefore also not be indirectly punished for it. According to the EU legal principles of legal certainty and equal treatment, he must be placed as if his case had been correctly processed at the time of application.
The case is already before the district court, and the farmer believes that it is of great importance for him and his colleagues to have it established that when EU money is unjustifiably withheld, the farmer is entitled to effective compensation, including interest. Therefore, he continues the fight to get his interest.