On 03.06.2021 Tartu District Court made a decision where it granted the appeal and annulled the decision of the Tartu Administrative Court.<\/p>\n
Tartu Administrative Court had agreed with the Agriculture and Food Board (ATA)* and PRIA and found that there were no grounds for doubting the reliability of what was found in the ATA inspection acts. According to the Administrative Court, the applicant had breached various statutory management requirements, but the court did not refer to the concrete evidence from which the infringements would have been shown.<\/p>\n
Tartu District Court agreed with the appellant that the evidence gathered by the ATA did not prove the alleged breaches of the statutory management requirements. The Court found that the ATA should have established the necessary facts correctly during the inspections, which had not been done in the present case. According to the Court, the evidence gathered in the context of the inspections carried out by the ATA did not prove breaches of the statutory management requirements.<\/p>\n
Since PRIA relied specifically on ATA inspection reports when it made a decision not to refuse the applications for support submitted by the client, in the light of the judgment of the Tartu District Court, PRIA must reconsider the applications for support submitted by the client.<\/p>\n
The District Court ordered both the ATA and the PRIA to pay equal amounts of the procedural costs paid by the applicant in the amount of EUR 6103.<\/p>\n
The decision has not entered into force and can appealed to the Supreme Court within 30 days.<\/p>\n
*PRIA \u2013 Agricultural Registers and Information Board<\/em><\/p>\n *Former Veterinary and Food Board, known as VTA<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On 03.06.2021 Tartu District Court made a decision where it granted the appeal and annulled the decision of the Tartu Administrative Court.<\/p>\n Tartu Administrative Court had agreed with the Agriculture and Food Board (ATA)* and PRIA and found that there were no grounds for doubting the reliability of what was found in the ATA inspection acts. According to the Administrative Court, the applicant had breached various statutory management requirements, but the court did not refer to the concrete evidence from which the infringements would have been shown.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[69,70],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7303","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-office-news","category-dispute-resolution"],"better_featured_image":null,"acf":{"add_images":false,"choose_news_feed":false},"aioseo_notices":[],"yoast_head":"\n