Stoisits: Noise pollution from the aluminium works in Lend
Noise pollution from the aluminium works in Lend
ORF-Series "Bürgeranwalt" (“Advocate for People”) – Broadcast of October 11th, 2008
Since beginning of the 90s a married couple in Lend in the Pinzgau has been increasingly affected by an unacceptable noise level from aluminium works which has been located there for over 100 years. 3 years ago they first complained to the District Commission of Zell am See about the activities at the scrap storage boxes at plant 2 day and night. In April of this year the complainants eventually involved the Office of the Ombudsperson.
The District Commission became aware only during the investigation procedure of the Office of the Ombudsperson and not as a result of the complaint by the persons affected, that the company SAG Aluminium Lend GmbH & Co KG had no permit from the authority for storage and handling scrap at plant 2. Although a hearing had been conducted in 1990, due to lack of care on the part of the then Head of the Trade Office of the district Commission of Zell/See, the permit was granted by mistake.
Besides Ombudsperson Mag. Terezija Stoisits and the complainants, the Chief Executive Officer of SAG and a representative of the District Commission of Zell am See also took part in this program.
The Chief Executive Officer of SAG declined to consider a proposal for a solution put forward by the complainants, namely to purchase their property, as this could set an example. The representative of the Trade Authority confirmed however, that contrary to the legal opinion of SAG, the scrap storage boxes, which are the subject of the complaint, may indeed not be covered by the permit. As a result of the complaint the trade authority now sees itself obliged to request supplementary documentation from SAG and to conduct a new hearing.
For Ombudsperson Mag. Terezija Stoisits the improvement of the quality of life for the persons affected is at the forefront. The representative of the Trade Authority promised to order the submission of the appropriate documentation for the noise containment in the scrap storage and handling area at plant 2. The representative of the company was able to envisage measures for improvement of the noise situation, such as a housing for the scrap storage boxes as well as plastic curtains in front of the scrap storage boxes, which are the subject of the complaint.
Ombudsperson Mag. Terezija Stoisits welcomed these suggestions and again confirmed that the aim of the continued investigation process by the Office of the Ombudsperson would be to request the authorities to impose measures for the protection of occupiers of adjoining properties.
Expensive burglary preventive measures of a tobacconist remain unrewarded
On 29 December 2007 Ombudsperson Mag. Stoisits reported on the cost assessments for false alarms at a tobacconist in Vienna. Despite taking expensive burglary preventive measures to protect her shop the owner had to pay for “unsuccessful” police intervention.
Initially the Office of the Ombudsperson could achieve a partial victory by convincing the Federal Police Department that the husband as Prokurist has authority to act and therefore could lodge an appeal in the cost assessment procedure. In fact, the authority dealt with the appeals in substance which it had initially declined outright.
Hence Ombudsperson Stoisits had to concede that the consideration of the appeal submissions in substance did not have a positive result.
Despite proper maintenance of the burglar alarm by the owner, the authority insisted on cost assessments of € 181 each. Officers at a police station nearby had even confirmed that setting off the alarm is a tactic employed by burglars to persuade the irritated owner to switch off the alarm. After that the burglary can be carried out without hindrance. “Despite this I appeal to everybody, not to be discouraged from protecting their property” stated Ombudsperson Stoisits, who still does not have much sympathy for the decisions of the Federal Police Department Vienna.