A farmer who initially received no 2019 Areas of Natural Constraints (ANC) Scheme payments due to a box-ticking mishap successfully appealed this decision through “Force Majeure” last year.
The case was one of the 158 cases closed by the Office of Agricultural Appeals last year, as noted in the “2020 Annual Report of the Agricultural Appeals Office”, which was published this week.
One case, given as examples of agricultural appeals cases decided by appeals officers during 2020, is as follows.
When submitting their 2019 Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) application the farmer omitted to tick the ANC application box. They were informed by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine (DAFM) that they would receive no 2019 ANC payments.
A review was sought, and the original decision was upheld, the office notes.
The decision was appealed on the grounds of serious health issues and severe stress the farmer was suffering from.
The farmer was also dealing with a divorce at this time. Medical documentation was provided to verify their condition. An oral hearing was not requested.
According to the office, the appeals officer reviewed the facts and contentions of this case as presented by the appellant and the department.
In arriving at a determination in this case they had regard to the terms and conditions of the scheme, the relevant EU legislation and the circumstances particular to this case. They also had regard to the rules of natural justice, the office said.
The Appeals Officer referred to paragraph four of 2019 ANC terms and conditions which deals with late applications.
They also referred to terms and conditions dealing with eligibility, noting the conditions in which “Force Majeure” (unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract) can apply, as well as acceptable reasons for the applications of Force Majeure.
“Taking into account the medical evidence that was provided the Appeals Officer found the provisions for Force Majeure due to long term professional incapacity of the farmer were applicable in this case.”
The appeal was allowed, the office concluded.