An expert from the Board of Trustees for Road Safety explained that various structural measures, such as traffic mirrors, could be examined. In principle, 50 km/h would apply in the local area. The permitted speed could only be reduced or increased if the safety and fluidity of traffic permitted it.
With reference to an expert opinion, the district authority of Oberpullendorf stated in a written that a speed limit of 70 km/h was justified at the location in question: the traffic conditions, existing carriageway width and visibility, average speed ("V 85"), accident data and looseness would allow this. 85% of vehicles would be travelling at less than 65 km/h there. A new expert opinion will be commissioned and changed circumstances, such as a higher number of bicycles, will be taken into account.
A statement from the Ministry of Transport stated that the federal states were responsible for implementing speed limits, in this specific case the Oberpullendorf district authority. For areas with a particular need for protection, such as in front of nurseries, schools, hospitals or senior citizens' facilities, the 35th amendment to the Austrian Road Traffic Regulations (StVO) in 2024 would have simplified the options for restricting speed.
Ombudsperson Schwetz did not see any application of the 35th StVO amendment in the programme, but the authorities would still have to examine this in detail on site. She conceded that certain specifications for expert opinions would be necessary in order to enable uniform enforcement nationwide, but: "Mr R. feels endangered in his day-to-day work and is not alone in this view, as we saw in the programme. A lot has happened in the three years since the first expert opinion was drawn up in 2021, which is why the district authority cannot rely on it." Even in the old report, the minimum visibility distances had already been undercut, but alternatives, such as the installation of mirrors, had not been examined. There are many danger spots like the one in Lockenhaus in rural regions. The local inspection announced by the authority is urgently needed.
"In an innovative approach, the Austrian Ombudsman Board proposes the introduction of a traffic sign that warns of the presence of tractors - especially tractors - in a similar way to a 'beware of changing game' sign," said Ombudsperson Schwetz. Such danger spots are often an issue in rural regions. Authorities should not just be guided by guidelines, but should also show common sense and take the interests of vulnerable road users into account when weighing up their interests.
Enquiry: Dog tax prescription is only legal in your own municipal area
In March, Ombudsperson Elisabeth Schwetz presented the case of Ms K. in the TV show "Bürgeranwalt", who, after moving to a new municipality in Gramatneusiedl and her previous municipality of residence in Leobendorf, was prescribed the dog tax as an annual tax for 2024. She had deregistered in the old municipality in June 2023, but had not explicitly deregistered her dogs.
The Lower Austrian Dog Tax Act exhaustively lists the circumstances in which the owner must deregister the dog in writing. According to the legal opinion of the Austrian Ombudsman Board, the case of Mrs K. is not covered and therefore there is no obligation to report the move in writing. The Region of Lower Austria is of the legal opinion that the case of Mrs K. should also be subsumed under this standard.
Ombudsperson Schwetz clarified, however, that the municipality may only impose the dog levy in its own municipal area. "In the view of the Austrian Ombudsman Board, the imposition of the dog levy in Mrs K.'s old municipality of residence took place without a legal basis: The exhaustively listed facts of the Lower Austrian Dog Keeping Act, in which a written notification must be made to the municipality, all did not apply to Mrs K.. This would only have been the case if Mrs K. had continued to stay with her dogs in the territory of the municipality. Even when the payment slip from the market town of Leobendorf was sent to an address in the municipality of Gramatneusiedl, one should have been suspicious that something was wrong here," said the Ombudsperson. The Austrian Ombudsman Board therefore demanded that the municipality cancel the advance payment for 2024 and refund Mrs K. the 80 euros she had already paid.
In the meantime, the municipality has repaid the 80 euros and Mrs K. announced that she would donate the amount to Spanish galgos in need. Ombudsperson Schwetz welcomed the fact that the municipality had repaid the amount, but: "The municipalities must be aware that, according to the Lower Austrian Dog Tax Act, they are generally only obliged to refund the amount. Dog Levy Act, they are generally only allowed to impose the dog levy in their own territory. The repayment of the 80 euros to Mrs K. is therefore not a gesture of goodwill, but the correction of a levy collected without a legal basis."
You can watch the TV show via the ORF ON app.