The Ombudsman receives complaints about § 13zs of the Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 27 January 2015 on the detailed scope and methods of implementing certain tasks of the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture. It states that aid is granted for the purpose of financial support for a family that is threatened by a loss of financial liquidity. A family should be understood as persons in a de facto relationship, living together and managing a household. On this basis, ARiMR refuses financial aid to farmers – single persons in connection with agricultural damage caused by weather phenomena.
In the opinion of the Commissioner for Human Rights, § 13zs of the regulation, as well as the resulting refusals to grant assistance to single persons, violate the principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 32 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution, Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 21 paragraph 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU).
Read more
Minister explains why single and subsistence farmers will not receive disaster aid
The Commissioner for Human Rights made a deeper analysis
In previous submissions to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development regarding the drought application in 2022 and 2023, the Commissioner for Human Rights indicated the exclusion of single people from the support program for agricultural producers affected by drought. In its response of 3 February 2023, the ministry did not address the advisability of distinguishing the situation of single farmers and those living in families in relation to public financial assistance.
In view of the subsequent complaints from single farmers, the problem was subjected to a more in-depth analysis in the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights. It led to the conclusion that § 13zs of the ARiMR regulation differentiates farmers based on marital status in a way that is not justified by rational reasons. It treats single people less favourably than those living in families, and they are in a comparable situation, which is applying for financial assistance in the face of the threat of losing financial liquidity due to damages.
The principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination are based on Article 32, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The essence of the principle of equality is the equal treatment of entities in the same situation or belonging to the same category (class of entities). Entities in a similar situation should be treated in a similar way, according to the same measure, without any discriminatory or favorable differentiations . If there is a different treatment of entities in a similar situation, it must be justified that the differentiation was justified – it was objectively and rationally justified.
Read more
Is disaster aid discrimination against single farmers and widows and widowers?
Unjustified deviation from the principle of equality
As the Commissioner for Human Rights emphasises, the principle of equality and derogations from it in international law should be understood in the same way, especially since, in the light of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Member States are obliged to respect the prohibition of any discrimination at every stage of implementation of programmes and projects financed from European Union funds.
– And all farmers affected by negative weather phenomena and facing the threat of losing financial liquidity belong to the same group and are in a similar situation. Therefore, the division into single people and those living in families, and granting public financial aid only to the second group, is a departure from the principle of equality, which cannot be considered admissible – notes the Commissioner for Human Rights.
Firstly, this differentiation is not relevant. It is not rationally justified in light of the purpose of the regulation. Single people can be considered even more vulnerable to loss of liquidity, because they do not have the possibility of support from other family members.
Secondly, it seems inadmissible to accept civil status as the basis for differentiation. Using this criterion is not excluded, but it must be rationally justified by the context of the case.
Thirdly: Article 4, section 6 of the Act on ARiMR states that the Council of Ministers shall determine by regulation the detailed scope and methods of implementing the statutory tasks of ARiMR, including the conditions and procedure for granting support within the framework of these tasks, taking into account the priorities of state policy in the field of agriculture, rural development and agricultural markets and the effective use of financial resources. The statutory tasks of ARiMR are not, in turn, subjectively limited to supporting families. Therefore, the provisions of the Act do not require that financial assistance be limited to families. This means that the source of discrimination are exclusively the provisions of the Regulation on ARiMR.
Therefore, Marcin Wiącek, the Commissioner for Human Rights, asked Czesław Siekierski, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development , to take the initiative to amend § 13zs of the regulation in order to ensure equal treatment of single farmers in terms of access to aid in the face of the threat of losing financial liquidity due to agricultural damage caused by weather phenomena.
Read more
It is easy to become a speculator. Why did the farmer not receive a grain subsidy?
