Dismissal of the appeal against the amendment of the Thurgau dog law

Facts

The appellant [X.] filed an appeal against the amendment of the Thurgau dog law of 12 September 2007, in particular against the introduction of § 7a, which allows a dog to be seized and placed with a third party if the keeper fails to fulfill financial obligations. The appellant complained of a violation of Art. 49 para. 1 Cst (primacy of federal law), animal protection, property guarantee, equal treatment, prohibition of arbitrariness, and personal freedom.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal and decided that the contested provision does not violate federal law. The seizure of a dog to enforce the payment of financial obligations is an administrative means of pressure intended to induce the keeper to fulfill their duties.

Considerations

The Federal Court examined the constitutionality of the contested provision and decided that it does not violate federal law. The seizure of a dog to enforce the payment of financial obligations is an administrative means of pressure intended to induce the keeper to fulfill their duties.

The court stated that the provision does not interfere with the scope of debt enforcement law, but is an administrative disadvantage that indirectly induces the defaulting dog keeper to fulfill their financial obligations. The non-fulfillment of public-law monetary claims can be sanctioned by administrative disadvantages and administrative penalties.

The court also examined whether the provision…