Sønderby Legal wins against the Danish Appeals Board for Environmental and Food Affairs in the High Court, which was represented by the Attorney General
By Per Hansen, Attorney and Partner, and Stine Petersen, Legal Counsel – Sønderby Legal
A 9-year-old case regarding investment in environmental technology in a barn on a farm in Jutland is now finally heading towards its conclusion, after the farmer in question won a case in the Western High Court (VL) after having lost in the district court.
The legal core of the case was whether an executive order from 2015, which had been tightened in the years after, should be interpreted in the same way as after the tightening. The VL rejected this. The condition that the grant holder – the farmer – continuously had the annual labor requirement for a number of years after the final disbursement, did not apply before the tightening of the executive order.
The case started in 2015, when our client applied for a grant commitment for investment in environmental technology in his barn. The Danish Agricultural Agency gave its commitment and the green light the following year. The technology was implemented in the barn, and this was followed by some years of better and more modern operation, until the farmer in the summer of 2021, in connection with requesting the final disbursement, was met with a rejection from the Danish Agricultural Agency. The reason given was that our client no longer met the annual labor requirement of 830 hours, as a generational change of the herd was initiated after the submission of the request for final disbursement.
The farmer had indeed carried out the generational change with his son, and now owned 50/50 of the farm, so the agency also justified the rejection with a changed CVR no. (business registration number) as a result of the change.
However, the farmer belongs to the determined type who does not give up, so we tried with the VL, and we succeeded.
In our assessment, a changed CVR no. cannot justify the cancellation of disbursement, and fortunately the VL agreed with us on this. However, we first had to go through the district court, which ruled in favor of the Danish Appeals Board for Environmental and Food Affairs, as the rules were interpreted in such a way that the labor requirement had to be met up to the time of disbursement.
The generational change to father-son was also not in violation of the rules. On that basis, as mentioned, the VL ruled in favor of the farmer, and the Danish Appeals Board for Environmental and Food Affairs v/ the Attorney General lost.
