Found an error?
Report nowA dairy farmer from St. Gallen has been waiting since 2009 for federal subsidies for milk used in cheese production and silage-free feeding. Now the Federal Office for Agriculture must pay—including interest for nearly 17 years.
Over 15 years ago, many farmers in Eastern Switzerland faced a financial disaster. Around 200 dairy farmers led by then-SVP National Council member Elmar Bigger had joined forces to process their milk themselves. They had high hopes of being able to operate independently of the large cheese dairies. But things turned out differently: The hired cheesemaker did not work properly and failed to pay the required contributions. The result: The milk processing organization went bankrupt.
For many farmers, this meant financial ruin. One of them was dairy farmer Peter Blöchlinger from Benken, St. Gallen. For months, he delivered milk to the organization. But for the months of January through March 2009, he received neither payment for his milk nor the federal subsidies for milk processed into cheese and for feeding without silage.
Blöchlinger initially tried to collect his money from the milk processors but failed. In the bankruptcy of Wick Käseproduktions AG, he came away empty-handed as a third-ranking creditor. It wasn’t until late 2021 that he demanded the funds directly from the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). The office rejected his claim, citing a technicality: the claim was time-barred.
The dairy farmer fought for his rights for years. Now the fight has paid off: According to a ruling by the Federal Administrative Court, Blöchlinger will finally receive his money after 17 years.
The court ordered the Federal Office to pay him exactly 9,031.65 francs, down to the last cent, plus five percent interest. Because this interest has been accruing since July 1, 2009, and the amount has earned interest day by day over the past 17 years, Blöchlinger can look forward to receiving approximately 16,600 francs as of today.
Dairy farmer Peter Blöchlinger has his farm in Benken, St. Gallen.
Google Maps
Blöchlinger only learned of the ruling when he received a call from the blue News journalist. At first, he had no idea what it was about: “That was seventeen years ago!” Later in the conversation, he recalls how grueling the dispute with the authorities was: “Back then, I had to hire a worker for a day to take over my farm so I could drive to the Federal Office.”
He describes the lengthy discussions as frustrating: “We were thoroughly berated by the officials. That nearly drove me to ruin.” It becomes clear during the conversation: his trust in the state and the authorities has suffered. This makes his satisfaction with the ruling—which he received via WhatsApp on his cell phone after the phone call—all the greater.
The Federal Administrative Court based its decision on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. For years, the Federal Office had told producers that they could only assert their claims against their milk processors—not against the federal government. It was not until 2018 that the Federal Supreme Court clarified that this legal interpretation was incorrect. Because Blöchlinger had relied on the official information and had therefore allowed his claim to become time-barred, the Federal Office’s statute of limitations defense is “inadmissible,” the court ruled.
According to the court, the fact that it can no longer be proven today how much of the delivered milk was actually processed into cheese is the federal government’s responsibility: It chose the payment system via the processors in its own interest and bears the associated risks. In addition to the approximately 16,600 francs, Blöchlinger will also receive 5,000 francs in legal costs.
The ruling is not yet final and may be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. It was handed down by Judges Mia Fuchs (SP), Pascal Richard, and Kathrin Dietrich (both Center).
Beyond this specific case, the ruling is significant because it clearly places the risk of the former payment practice with the federal government. The subsidies did not go directly to the farmers but were channeled through the milk processors. If this transfer fails, the court ruled that the federal government cannot simply pass the risk on to the producers.
