Facts
The Federal Department of Economic Affairs filed a complaint against the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 27 November 2007, which had established that [X.] and [Y.] were entitled to agricultural direct payments for the year 2006. [X.] and [Y.] operated the agricultural leasehold [A.] , whose lease ended on 31 March 2006. They did not leave the farm until 19 March 2007. The Agricultural Office of the Canton of Schwyz had originally decided that [X.] and [Y.] would not receive direct payments because they were neither owners nor lessees of the farm.
The Government Council of the Canton of Schwyz overturned this decision and established the entitlement to direct payments. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Schwyz overturned this decision again. The Federal Administrative Court granted the complaint of [X.] and [Y.] and established the entitlement to direct payments for the year 2006.
Considerations
The Federal Court had to decide whether [X.] and [Y.] were entitled to agricultural direct payments for the year 2006, although they operated the farm without a valid lease. The court examined whether the actual circumstances or the legal circumstances, in particular the ownership or lease relationships, were relevant for the payment of direct payments.
The court came to the conclusion that the legal circumstances are relevant and that only the civilly lawful operator is entitled to direct payments. The payment of direct payments independent of the entitlement to operate would mean that breaches of private law obligations would be supported by federal financial contributions, which would contradict the legal order and the principle of legal certainty.
The court established that…