Facts
The appellant [X.] concluded an agricultural lease agreement for the farm [A.] in [B.] on January 30, 1999. The lease relationship was terminated by the Einsiedeln monastery with effect from March 31, 2008. The new owner of the farm, [C. AG] , granted [X.] a period of notice until May 15, 2008, on March 5, 2008.
The Agricultural Office of the Canton of Thurgau informed [X.] on August 4, 2008, that due to the termination of the lease relationship on March 31, 2008, he was not entitled to direct payments for the year 2008. [X.] appealed against this decision, which was rejected by the Department of Home Affairs and Economy of the Canton of Thurgau and the Federal Administrative Court.
[X.] then applied to the Federal Court to set aside the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court and to refer the case back to the lower court for re-examination. The Federal Court set aside the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court and referred the case back to the Agricultural Office of the Canton of Thurgau for further clarification and re-examination.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the appellant was entitled to direct payments for the year 2008, although he had only operated the farm for a few days beyond the reference date and thus during a small part of the vegetation period. The court found that the lower court had rightly assumed that the agreement on the use of the former leasehold for the period from April 1, 2008, to May 15, 2008, provided a sufficient civil law basis for the assumption of lawful independent management.
However, the court found that the lower court had not shown in what way the farm's transferee had a personal interest in the granted extension of the period. It was not apparent, however, that the transferee had a personal interest in the extension of the period. The lower court was allowed to waive the hearing of the new owner in admissible anticipated evaluation of…