Facts
The complainants, [A.A.] and [B.A.] , were imposed a ban on keeping dogs and the confiscation of their two dogs, [C.] and [D.] , by the Office for Consumer Protection and Veterinary Affairs of the Canton of St. Gallen (AVSV) due to violations of the Animal Protection Act and the Animal Protection Ordinance (AniWO). The lower court confirmed these measures.
The complainants allege an arbitrary establishment of the facts and evaluation of the evidence by the Administrative Court as well as a violation of their right to be heard. They claim that the lower court waived the conduct of an on-site inspection and the obtaining of an expert opinion on dog keeping.
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal in public law matters and did not consider the subsidiary constitutional complaint.
Considerations
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal in public law matters because the lower court did not arbitrarily establish the facts and evaluate the evidence. The complainants did not substantiate how the findings of the Administrative Court are apparently unsustainable.
The Federal Court also dismissed the allegation of a violation of the right to be heard, as the lower court allowed the complainants to comment extensively in writing and submit evidence. The lower court was entitled to waive the taking of further evidence, as it had already formed its opinion based on the evidence taken.
The Federal Court also confirmed the material application of the law by the lower court. The complainants violated the Animal Protection Act and the Animal Protection Ordinance by keeping their dogs under…