• You are here:
• Home /
• Archived /
• Press Release - Agriculture Case Summaries (Annual Report 1995)

Press Release - Agriculture Case Summaries (Annual Report 1995)

Press Release - Agriculture Case Summaries (Annual Report 1995)

Agriculture - Notes

• European Legislation

• A chicken hatchery owner who complained that a delay on the part of the Department of Agriculture and Food in informing him of the introduction of a new EU Directive, on animal health conditions governing trade in poultry and hatching eggs, contributed to the failure of his business. His premises did not comply with the terms of the directive and he said he had been told that he would not be allowed to renew his licence or continue to trade after the introduction of the new Regulations. The Department's view was that the onus was on the complainant to keep himself informed of legal requirements for the operation of his business. However, an investigation by the Ombudsman found that the Department had not taken reasonable steps to inform all hatcheries of the imminence or implications of the Directive, that the larger hatcheries had received more favourable treatment by the Department in relation to information on the Directive and that therefore the complainant had been discriminated against by the Department. He recommended, in total, a sum of �8,800 in mitigation of the complainant's loss and for the inconvenience and stress caused by the Department's actions. The Department accepted this recommendation.
• A farmer who denied receiving notification from the Department of the commencement of a new Set-Aside scheme and who was subsequently refused entry into the scheme. He had been a participant of the previous scheme and when the notification failed to arrive, he contacted the Department and only discovered at that stage, months later, that he was too late. The farmer had serious personal reasons for his failure to take up the matter sooner with the Department. When contacted by the Ombudsman, the Department undertook to review the case and decided that, given the farmers domestic circumstances, the case could be considered under the force majeure provisions of the EU Regulations. These provisions allow for the acceptance of applications and the making of payments where it can be shown that exceptional circumstances, outside the control of the applicant, apply. In this case, the Department agreed to accept the complainant into the scheme for 1994 and subsequent years.

• Refusal to pay Ewe Premium

A farmer complained that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry had refused his applications under the 1989 and 1990 Ewe Premium Schemes because they maintained that the sheep in question had confusing ear marks. The Department carried out the inspection of the sheep for both years at the same time in 1990 and claimed that the marks on the ears could be confused with the Department's own 1990 ear notch. The farmer maintained that the disputed mark on the ears was the private identification mark of the farmer from whom he had purchased the sheep. He had never had a problem with this mark on previous occasions when he had bought sheep from the same farmer, and on the date of inspection he was not informed that there was a problem with the marks. An examination of the Department's files suggested that there was considerable doubt as to whether or not the offending ear marks could be confused with the Department's marking system. The procedures used on the day of the inspection and recording of information were also examined. The Department subsequently agreed to pay the premium, valued at �28,000.