Facts
The complainant [X.] runs an agricultural business in [W.] , where he keeps cattle and horses. On 6 March 2007, the Veterinary Office of the Canton of Thurgau carried out an inspection and requested [X.] to keep all animals in accordance with animal welfare regulations. On 28 April 2009, the Veterinary Office carried out another inspection and found that the requirements for species-appropriate horse and cattle keeping were not met in all respects.
The Veterinary Office ordered on 14 July 2009 that [X.] would be subject to a ban on keeping animals if further defects were found during another inspection. [X.] appealed to the Department of the Interior and Economy of the Canton of Thurgau, which rejected the appeal. [X.] then filed a complaint with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Thurgau, which rejected the complaint.
[X.] finally filed a complaint in public law matters and a subsidiary constitutional complaint with the Federal Court. The Federal Court partially lifted the order of the Veterinary Office and rejected the complaint in all other respects.
Considerations
The Federal Court first examined whether the complaint in public law matters was admissible. It found that the complaint was admissible as it was directed against a cantonal final decision.
Then the Federal Court examined what was the subject of the dispute in the matter. It found that the order of the Veterinary Office of 14 July 2009 contained a mere finding that certain defects constituted a repeated and serious violation of animal welfare regulations. The Federal Court found that this finding could not be the subject…