Facts
The appellant [X.] operates an agricultural business in the hamlet of [W.] and submitted an application for direct payments for the year 2008 on May 2, 2008. The Agricultural Office of the Canton of Thurgau refused to pay advance payments and later also the direct payments for the year 2008. The appellant appealed to the Department of the Interior and Economy of the Canton of Thurgau, which dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the appellant filed a complaint with the Federal Administrative Court, which also dismissed the complaint.
The appellant now files a complaint in public law matters and a subsidiary constitutional complaint, requesting that, by revoking the contested judgment, it be established that he is entitled to receive direct payments for the year 2008 and that all direct payments due for the year 2008, plus interest at 5% since December 31, 2008, be paid to him.
Considerations
The Federal Court must examine whether the refusal of direct payments by the Agricultural Office of the Canton of Thurgau was lawful. The lower court justified the refusal of direct payments with two different arguments: on the one hand, the ecological performance record (ÖLN) was not provided because no inspections took place that year, and on the other hand, the refusal of direct payments was also not objectionable due to the criminal conviction for violating animal protection regulations, partly committed in 2008.
However, the Federal Court has found that the appellant could assume, based on previous practice and the file, that the KOL would carry out the inspections ex officio. The refusal of contributions cannot be justified by the argument that animal protection regulations were violated if it is irrelevant for entitlement whether animals are kept at all.
The Federal Court has also found that the refusal of area contributions and ecological compensation contributions is…