Do these farmers have to cull cows?

The court in The Hague divides the judgments in this summary proceedings over 4 days. The first day of this is Wednesday, August 9, when the judge will issue the verdict for the first group of 140 dairy farmers. They are represented by Linssen Advocaten.

The first group consists of companies that have grown and entered into investment obligations before July 2, 2015. Lawyer Marieke Toonders of Linssen Advocaten: "They have entered into irreversible investment obligations and have run their business in accordance with the rules of the AMvB Land relatedness extensive. The intervention of the phosphate reduction plan was unforeseen and is an unlawful interference by the government in the dairy farmer's property." In addition, according to Toonders, there is no compensation and the dairy farmers have therefore been unlawfully taxed. 

Summary judgments
The preliminary relief judge will start ruling on the phosphate reduction plan on Wednesday. The commitment of the 400 dairy farmers is to ensure that they are not forced to cull their cows and they therefore want to be excluded from the phosphate reduction plan. They filed summary proceedings after the May 4 ruling. The judge then ruled in favor of approximately 50 dairy farmers, who also believed that the phosphate reduction plan did not apply to them. The State is in appealed. That appeal is due on September 19. 

Same treatment
There is a good chance that these dairy farmers, just like the first group, will be vindicated in summary proceedings. The group of claimants, who are now waiting for the judge's decision, want to be treated the same as the dairy farmers who preceded them. Lawyer Anja Roos of Omny de Vries Advocaten represents ten dairy farmers and believes there is a good chance that the judge will make the same judgment. "The preliminary relief judge cannot suddenly turn 180 degrees, can he?"

According to Roos, there is another point. "The phosphate reduction plan is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The phosphate reduction plan unjustly deprives dairy farmers of ownership." These companies do not fall under the emergency regulations.

Huge noose
Suppose a dairy farmer bought 30 heifers from Germany in the spring of 2015. These animals would arrive at the farmer in question on July 1, 2015. Due to summer weather conditions, transport has been postponed for a few days. These cows only arrived at his farm on July 4, 2015. He must then return to his lower number of cows from July 2, 2015. Is this a problem or just bad luck? In any case, a huge blow for this company.

Consequences of being right
If claimant dairy farms are successful, this will have the following consequences:

• For the time being, they will not have to participate in the phosphate reduction plan.
• The ruling will have an attractive effect on other dairy farmers. They will consider filing new summary proceedings against the State.

For the other dairy farms, this means that the reduction percentages in the phosphate reduction plan will have to increase further in order to achieve the desired reduction. The aim of the phosphate reduction plan is to bring the phosphate production of dairy farming under the phosphate ceiling (the phosphate production of 1) as of January 2018, 2002. Much will depend on the ruling in the appeal.

Appeal by Van Dam
If the State is successful in the appeal, all dairy farms must still comply with the phosphate reduction plan (with retroactive effect from March 1). Also the companies that are now exempt. After all, it is at your own expense and risk not to comply with the phosphate reduction plan. The amount that dairy farmers have to pay can be high. Toonders: "Of the group of dairy farmers we represent, most have already sold cattle. In terms of numbers, they are between the reference number and the number to be definitively reduced."

The consequences of being wrong
If these companies are not proven right, they will also have to comply with the phosphate reduction plan. If these companies do not meet their reduction target, a levy of €480 per LU must be paid every second month of a period. This levy is due on the difference between the average number of animals present and the reference number.

Have the dairy farmers met the reduction target for that month, but the reference number has not yet been achieved? Then a solidarity levy of €112 must be paid on the difference between the average number of animals present and the reference number. When the reference quantity is reached, no further levy is due.

Consequences for the phosphate reduction plan
It is therefore possible that the companies in question will be exempt from the phosphate reduction plan. It will probably not happen that the entire dairy farm will be exempt from the phosphate reduction plan. Roos: "The judge already ruled on May 4 that the agricultural law, which includes the phosphate reduction plan, provides sufficient guidance to maintain the scheme. If they are right, the discount for the other dairy farmers will increase." 

It is not yet clear how great these consequences are. A spokesperson for LTO Netherlands said this. The Ministry of Economic Affairs also wants to wait for tomorrow's ruling before they can make any further statements.