Facts
The Grand Council of the Canton of Thurgau supplemented the cantonal law of 5 December 1983 on keeping dogs (Dog Act) by introducing additional obligations for dog owners and corresponding official control possibilities with its decision of 12 September 2007. The new provision, § 7a, allows a dog to be seized and accommodated until the keeper's financial obligations are fulfilled. The appellant, X., filed a complaint with the Federal Court, requesting that paragraphs 1-3 of § 7a of the amended law be repealed.
The main parties to the proceedings are the appellant X. and the Canton of Thurgau. The Federal Court dismissed the complaint in accordance with its considerations.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the constitutionality of the cantonal regulation and came to the conclusion that confiscating dogs to enforce financial obligations of the keeper does not violate the precedence of federal law. The regulation does not constitute a measure directly serving the enforcement of the monetary payment obligation, but rather aims to indirectly induce the defaulting dog owner to fulfill their financial obligations.
The court stated that the non-fulfillment of public-law monetary claims can be sanctioned by administrative legal disadvantages and administrative penalties, as long as these measures respect the principle of proportionality. Confiscating dogs to enforce financial obligations of the keeper is permissible as an administrative sanction, as long as it is proportionate and does not violate the keeper's fundamental rights.
The court also examined whether…