Ombudswoman Schwetz criticises double imposition of dog tax in old and new municipality of residence

The market town of Leobendorf was not accommodating, but instead referred to the Lower Austrian Dog Tax Act, according to which the dog tax would only end when the dog was deregistered in writing; the woman would not have done this until 2024. However, as this was an annual fee, the municipality's entitlement to the fee was reinstated on 1 January. The municipality could also not know who the dog owner was via a central register of residents.

The Office of the Lower Austrian Provincial Government added that dogs are not automatically deregistered if the owner's place of residence changes, as it could also be the case that the dog owner changes their place of residence but the dog does not. In Stockerau, where the woman had lived before Leobendorf, a change of residence was sufficient and it was not necessary to deregister the dogs.

In the programme, Ombudswoman Elisabeth Schwetz described municipalities as the "first point of contact for citizens". The latter must be able to rely on their municipality to act in a solution-orientated manner. In this case, however, the municipality had failed to do so. In addition to the Lower Austrian Dog Tax Act, the Federal Tax Code was also applicable: "In this case, the municipality should have orientated itself more towards the actual circumstances when assessing the dog owner status. In the opinion of the Austrian Ombudsman Board, the 2024 dog levy in Leobendorf was imposed without a legal basis. In addition, the municipality must investigate cases that are subject to the levy," said Ombudswoman Schwetz. This is perfectly feasible in a small municipality, especially if the person in question even approaches the municipality about the matter themselves. The municipality would have to pay the woman back the dog licence fee that was wrongly demanded. The Ombudsman Board will continue to pursue the case.

Enquiry: Defusing a country road in the local area that is dangerous for schoolchildren

Residents of a small Styrian municipality had complained to the Austrian Ombudsman Board because their village was crossed by a busy provincial road on which a speed limit of 70 km/h was permitted, but there were no pavements or other protective facilities. The case was first discussed in "Bürgeranwalt" in April 2024. Children had to make their way to school along the edge of the road, which was unreasonable. There have also been serious accidents in the municipality's catchment area along the road. The neighbours wanted a speed limit of 50 km/h and a pavement at the danger point. However, the district authority of Graz-Umgebung saw no reason for a speed limit, as there had been no road deaths there in the last fifty years.

The Austrian Ombudsman Board criticised the fact that this argument could not apply to the future. The volume of traffic has certainly changed over the last 50 years. In "Nachgefragt", Ombudswoman Elisabeth Schwetz quoted from a report by the Hitzendorf police, according to which the school route on the aforementioned country road had a certain potential for danger. It could not be the aim to wait until a significant number of accidents actually happened on the country road. "The fact that the mayor commissioned a feasibility study was a good first step. Unfortunately, it is now failing because of the costs. Everyone involved needs to sit down together and find a solution," says Ombudswoman Schwetz. Some residents are even prepared to cede parts of their land free of charge for the construction of a pavement.