Order from the veterinary office: When authorities lack legal knowledge
The trend towards stricter dog ownership is unmistakable: Various cantons are tightening the law and introducing compulsory courses for owners. The message is clear: anyone who leads a dog should learn to take responsibility.
From our daily practice in dog law, however, we experience another, often overlooked deficit – not primarily among owners, but in the practice of the veterinary authorities of individual cantons. They sometimes lack the necessary legal tools. Our perception is pointed: Not only the dog owners, but also the responsible authorities would in many cases be in need of further legal training.
When case numbers are more important than the facts
We often observe official measures that are based on a seemingly simple logic: more incidents = stricter requirements.
What is often neglected, however, is the careful clarification of the background according to the principles of the rule of law. Which dog actually bit? Were the owner’s duties breached – or was it the other way around?
An example from our practice: A dog was correctly leashed when a loose dog without a visible owner appeared and attacked him. Despite this, the competent veterinary office initiated proceedings against our client and threatened to take drastic measures – solely because his dog was involved in an “incident”. It was only through our intervention that the facts of the case were clarified and it was shown that our client was not responsible. Such schematic decisions are not only unjust, but also legally contestable.
Rule of law standards and administrative law principles also apply to veterinary offices
As lawyers for animal law, we are confronted with the fact that the conduct of proceedings by veterinary authorities is sometimes flawed. We find this to be particularly common:
-
Violation of the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 BV): The objections and representations of the holders are not sufficiently taken into account or are only acknowledged pro forma.
-
Violation of the principle of investigation: The facts of the case are only clarified superficially or one-sidedly instead of investigating all relevant circumstances.
-
Orders that are not proportionate: Measures such as compulsory leashes or muzzles are ordered mechanically instead of carefully examining the necessity and suitability in each individual case.
The result: administrative orders that later have to be corrected or overturned by the courts. This not only leads to unnecessary expense for everyone involved, but also to a growing loss of trust among dog owners.
Vets are not lawyers – a structural challenge
One reason for these deficits is the staffing of the veterinary offices. In smaller cantons in particular, the officers are often trained veterinarians. Their veterinary and behavioral expertise is undisputed and valuable. However, this is not a criticism of the individuals involved: The problem is of a structural nature if veterinary expertise is not translated into a constitutionally clean administrative procedure. Professional assessments are no substitute for correct application of the law.
A rethink is on the horizon
Awareness of the legal pitfalls in animal welfare law is growing, even within the authorities. There are several reasons for this: On the one hand, the authorities themselves are placing a stronger focus on animal welfare, which is leading to an increase in proceedings. On the other hand, high-profile cases in the media, such as that of Hefenhofen TG, have sensitized the public and politicians to the complexity of the matter.
Fortunately, this is leading to concrete measures. It is an important signal that institutions such as the Swiss
Conclusion
Compulsory dog courses may make sense, but they fall short if the authorities that decide the fate of dogs and their owners are not equally trained. We advocate a change of perspective: dog courses for owners are one thing – consistent legal training for veterinary offices in the basics of administrative law is another.
Because not every incident justifies a muzzle. But every official order must meet the requirements of the rule of law.
Order from the veterinary office? Get legal support now.
Our lawyers specializing in animal and dog law in Winterthur can help you immediately with the following:
-
Defense against unjustified requirements (e.g. compulsory leash or muzzle)
-
Defense in criminal and administrative proceedings
-
Contestation of rulings and checks
Take advantage of our initial consultation for CHF 330 (60 min.) to analyze your situation and determine the best strategy. In person at our office or conveniently via video call.
FAQ - Frequently asked questions about the administrative procedure at the veterinary office
Not always. In our practice as lawyers, we often see measures (e.g. compulsory use of a lead or muzzle) being imposed without the facts of the case being properly and fully clarified. Formal and material errors are not uncommon.
We often find deficiencies in three areas:
Lack of right to be heard: The arguments of the owner are not sufficiently considered.
Inadequate investigations: The facts of the case are only investigated superficially or one-sidedly.
Disproportionality: The measure ordered is too severe for the specific incident.
Each of these procedural errors can lead to the entire order being legally contestable. In such a case, an appeal should be considered in order to have the measure corrected or revoked.
The problem – especially in small cantons – is mostly of a structural nature. Many employees are excellent veterinarians, but not lawyers. They often lack the in-depth training in administrative law to translate their veterinary assessments into a legally unassailable procedure.
A requirement is disproportionate if it is not suitable, necessary and reasonable to achieve an objective (e.g. public safety). It must always be checked whether a milder means – a less drastic measure – would also be sufficient. Not every incident immediately justifies a muzzle.
Yes, you can appeal against an official decision. But beware: the time limits, which vary from canton to canton, are often short (sometimes only 14 days). In addition, the practice of the courts is rather strict. In cases of doubt, decisions are often made in favor of public safety. Professional legal assistance is therefore recommended at an early stage.
Keep calm and check the deadlines set. Do not respond hastily and do not make a statement without checking the files and seeking legal advice. An early discussion with a specialist lawyer will clarify the initial situation and define the best strategy.
Matthias Fricker
Attorney at law and partner at Fricker and Füllemann Attorneys at Law
Studied at the University of St. Gallen, graduating with a Master in Law (M.A. HSG in Law) in 2012, registered in the Bar Register of the Canton of Zurich, member of the Zurich Bar Association.
Fabian Füllemann
Attorney at law and partner at Fricker and Füllemann Attorneys at Law
Studied at the Universities of St. Gallen and Zurich, graduating with a Master of Law UZH in 2013, registered with the Zurich Bar Registry, member of the Zurich Bar Association.
