Case in Hefenhofen

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Location of the municipality of Hefenhofen

The Hefenhofen case is believed to be “ the most complex and comprehensive animal welfare case in Switzerland ” ( Neue Zürcher Zeitung ). The scene of the case, which has been going on since around 2003, is a farm in the Brüschwil district in the Thurgau community of Hefenhofen near Lake Constance .

In this operation, animal welfare deficiencies were repeatedly found between 2003 and 2017 , and the owner of this farm, who was primarily responsible, violated other laws without the corresponding criminal and administrative proceedings being able to bring about a lasting improvement. Although grievances had been known for years, the farm was only cleared in 2017, just six days after photos of neglected horses from this farm were leaked to the media.

In 2018, the commission of inquiry set up on behalf of the canton of Thurgau tracked wrong decisions and omissions on the part of the cantonal government and various cantonal authorities . Such cases are to be prevented in the future through a catalog of measures.

chronology

Until the first conviction under the Animal Welfare Act 2003

The owner of the farm has been on record since 1997. At that time, as in later incidents up to 2003, there were threats against officials, including a death threat .

In contrast, the first complaint concerning his animal husbandry was dated 2003, when the public prosecutor's office accused the farmer of illegal slaughtering under poor hygiene. The meat was delivered to the restaurant run by the relative, which is right next to the farm. The meat stored for this was from "countless maggots and other vermin". This was revealed by an unannounced inspection by the cantonal veterinarian on April 5, 2002. The farmer resisted the inspection to such an extent that the cantonal veterinarian was slightly injured. In addition, he operated the shafts that were banned in Switzerland . He was sentenced on November 10, 2003 to a fine of 2000 francs and a month's imprisonment for violations of the animal welfare law and for threats against authorities and officials: the canton vet was threatened by the farmer by telephone and he received death threats.

Incidents in 2005

Erwin Kessler, here at an animal rights demonstration (2014)

The animal rights activist Erwin Kessler from the Verein gegen Tierfabriken (VgT), known to be arguable, received information about a possible prohibited tethering of horses. He visited the farm on May 13, 2005 with the aim of capturing this photographically. The farmer's father used violence against Kessler and threatened to break his neck. The prosecution in this regard was carried off by the Thurgau judiciary, as confirmed by the Federal Court , which is why he was only convicted four years later for it: simple bodily harm , multiple threats and damage to property , as well as animal cruelty . In order to be able to shoe a restless horse, it was mistreated by the father until it died. When questioned, the son stated that the horse was a "bully" that should be "knocked off". Four weeks after meeting Erwin Kessler, the farm owner became violent against an inspector from the veterinary office , who fined him as well as other assaults .

Incidents from 2006 to 2013 prison sentence

In 2006 and 2007 the media became aware of the farm in Hefenhofen. As a result, there were more and more information about the conditions on the farm, including lame calves or animal welfare practices. Any visitors, be they animal welfare representatives or authorities, were, with a few exceptions, sent away under threats.

In 2007 the owner applied for the conversion of a stable from suckler cow and horse keeping to one exclusively for keeping horses, which he was denied, but he did it without authorization. Animal welfare regulations for keeping horses were systematically violated, in 2008 he was sentenced in his absence by the Arbon district court to a fine of 9,000 francs and a fine of 2,000 francs. The court also found that he lacked insight and self-reflection. The holder pulled the judgment on to the federal court in vain ( 6B_711 / 2009 ). In addition, in 2008 the army withdrew the farmer's mandate to breed Freiberg horses for them, as he violated animal welfare regulations in “many areas” of horse keeping.

An inspection should have been carried out by the canton veterinarian in autumn 2009. In this case, the farmer physically attacked the vet and threatened him with a pistol, according to his own statements, with a plastic pistol. For this purpose, he was sentenced to an unconditional prison sentence of nine months in 2010, which was only legally valid after a federal court decision ( 6B_592 / 2011 ), on December 5, 2011, which he began in December 2012.

The assault culminated on September 10, 2010 during a follow-up inspection when the farmer pointed a metal scraper with a wooden handle in the direction of a canton employee and shouted "i schloh di abä, i bring di um". Accompanying police officers had to pull out their service weapons and use pepper spray .

Conflicts with creditors 2010

One of his creditors accused the farmer of throwing the believer's foal down into the farm's canal . Another believer's window was damaged by two bullets. As a result, the farmer was searched and several weapons and ammunition were discovered. The farmer was taken into custody and subsequently taken to the Münsterlingen psychiatric clinic for a few weeks . He could not be blamed for anything in this regard. The Federal Supreme Court, before which this case finally came, awarded the farmer a compensation of several thousand francs instead of the 247,999 francs he had demanded.

After the prison sentence from 2013

From December 2012 to May 2013, the farmer served his prison sentence in the form of a semi- imprisonment .

Between 2013 and 2017 there were no more convictions, but there were still complaints from the veterinary office, in particular regarding lame horses, improper killing and disposal of the carcasses, insufficient care and disregard of the inspectors' recommendations. Any measures decreed for this reason were taken to the Federal Supreme Court.

One consequence of the grievances was the imposition of a partial animal-keeping ban on August 8, 2013, a restriction to 60 horses. On October 6, 2014, a total ban on keeping animals was issued, which was lifted by the Federal Supreme Court in 2016 due to refusal to be heard . In July 2015 the veterinary office ordered the seizure of a foal, this was prevented by the farmer killing it with a nail gun - in the presence of the police. The public prosecutor's office therefore had no choice but to order the seizure of one leg of this foal, which the farmer refused "with a great laugh".

Worsening horse husbandry from 2015

When the farm owner's marriage broke up in 2015, horse keeping deteriorated massively. The authorities received more information about this in 2017. The Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office reported in February 2017 that the farmer is probably not able to keep animals. This was shown by moldy bread and dirt in the pigsty, 140 horses instead of the declared 54. Nevertheless, the Thurgauian Department of Internal Affairs and Economics (DIV), which is responsible for the veterinary office, continued to negotiate with the farmer and made him concessions, so from then on he was allowed 80 Hold horses.

At the end of June 2017, a hoof carer reported on "shocking conditions", and on July 14, the veterinary office received a photo documentation of the farm from a former employee of the farm. A criminal complaint for cruelty to animals was filed on July 24th.

Eviction 2017 and aftermath

On August 2, 2017, the tabloid Blick published individual pictures of the woman who filed a criminal complaint: "In the past few months, at least 13 horses have died that he left dead in the herd for days." On August 8, 2017, the courtyard was evacuated on behalf of the government council with a large police presence with the support of the military. The government denies a connection to the publication in view , but due to the quick reaction it is assumed that the publication of the pictures and their consequences (reporting by other media, siege of the farm by animal rights activists, etc.) led to the quick evacuation. 93 horses, around 50 cows, 80 pigs, goats and sheep and four llamas were seized. The animals were handed over to the army. Five animals had to be euthanized, a third of the pigs had to be slaughtered because of breaks or illnesses, two thirds of the cows had to be slaughtered for “economic reasons”. A caring accommodation was arranged for the farmer .

On August 17th, the animals were auctioned at the Competence Center for Veterinary Service and Army Animals in Schönbühl . The auction just nine days after the eviction was felt by animal welfare organizations and some politicians as too hasty. According to Jost Rüegg ( Greens ), since the buyers were determined by lot, the “quality of the new places” could not be checked, and there were also resales on site. None of this was in the aim of animal welfare.

As of November 2018, the public prosecutor's office is conducting a criminal investigation into violations of the Animal Welfare Act, the investigations in this regard are still ongoing.

person

The farmer is a family man from Scherzingen, born in 1968 . The married farmer, who has been living separately since 2015, fathered eight boys, according to the Neue Zürcher Zeitung . In 1995 he took over the farm in Hefenhofen from his father, who died in 2017. As an organic farmer , he did without high-performance cows when he took over and produced cattle for slaughter as part of the animal welfare programs eligible for subsidies, RAUS (regular outdoor exercise ) and BTS (particularly animal-friendly stable systems).

As of 2005, he had neither taxable income nor assets, and there is no reliable data on his financial situation because he did not fill out subsequent tax returns. Ownership of “a farm in Poland” is documented. The court proceedings cost the farmer around 100,000 francs, plus legal fees. He had believers. In view of his financial situation, he submitted applications for free administration of justice, some of which were granted to him as part of the administrative proceedings, totaling around 40,000 francs. In addition, between 2008 and 2013 there were federal subsidies of around 73,500 francs per year for area contributions and for organic direct payments as well as animal keeper and animal welfare contributions.

In the media as well as in cantonal publications he is described inconsistently, sometimes with his initials “UK”, with the first name “Ulrich K.”, on the other hand, the media, for example the NZZ group ( CH media ), sometimes call him by his full name. Often used in the media, nicknames are, for example, “Tierquäler von Hefenhofen”, “Pferdquäler von Hefenhofen” or “Pferdquäler Ulrich K.”.

The farm in Brüschwil near Hefenhofen was an agricultural business in which horse breeding and cattle farming were carried out. After the evacuation, travelers were stationed there as of 2018 .

Processing the case

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung had 50 court rulings in this matter, 15 of which were federal court rulings. According to the newspaper, these documents revealed that the farmer had been convicted of systematic cruelty to animals and other offenses. According to Richter, he does this “knowingly and willingly”, he shows no love for animals at all. His attitude towards people was no better. He usually took any judgments to the Federal Supreme Court and, if necessary, resisted them under threat of violence. The authorities were overwhelmed with the farmer, which led to the fact that the farm was practically unlawful.

Role of the Thurgau authorities

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung states that the Thurgau authorities have failed.

Criminal judges sentenced the farmer several times for violations, including against the Animal Welfare Act. They stressed that the conditions on the farm were intolerable. Enactments and enforcement of bans on keeping animals, on the other hand, are not within the competence of the criminal court, this is in the area of ​​administrative justice. The veterinary office and the cantonal veterinarian located there within the Department of Internal Affairs and Economics (DIV) are entrusted with this, and the government council as the second instance. Even when physical attacks and death threats intimidated the authorities, the canton vet, although physically attacked, repeatedly showed mildness, since the farmer had eight boys to feed and a ban on keeping animals would have threatened his existence. On the other hand, Erwin Kessler (VgT) put pressure on the veterinary office.

In 2008, the Arbon District Court explicitly requested the veterinary office to issue a ban on keeping animals, as continued keeping would be fatal for the animals. The Office decided not to do so, instead an order was imposed on areas that need improvement. The farmer challenged this decision to the federal court, which is why the legal prerequisites for this were only met in 2011. But this was not implemented: In contrast to all earlier and later controls, a follow-up inspection by the veterinary office suddenly found no more deficiencies. That was enough for the farmer to be allowed to keep animals as before. The protocol of this follow-up control could not be found.

Due to such contradictions, sometimes it is “everything is fine with regard to animal husbandry”, although corresponding reports are missing, and sometimes it is said that the farmer does not meet the requirements of animal welfare, the courts sometimes had no other choice, in case of doubt to judge for the accused . Therefore, subsidy contributions of over 100,000 francs withheld up to now had to be paid back.

In 2013, after the farmer had served his sentence, another check was carried out. Despite identified deficiencies, he was given another chance until a total animal keeping ban was issued in October 2014, which should have been implemented by the end of 2014. However, the farmer defended himself before the federal court. He got the right in July 2016, the cause of which was a “gross procedural error” on the part of the Thurgau authorities: the farmer was denied access to the files. The consequence was that the animal keeping ban was null and void. Due to unjust animal husbandry, he had been withheld contributions of 40,000 francs for animal keeper and animal welfare contributions, which had to be paid to him on the basis of this ruling.

As part of the Hefenhofen case, a working group specially formed by the government council was founded in April 2014, which dissolved after 20 months and eleven meetings without any result. When Walter Schönholzer replaced Kaspar Schläpfer as Head of Department of the DIV in 2016 , mediation was attempted, which also failed. According to the Neuer Zürcher Zeitung , the publication of the pictures in view gave the signal for the final evacuation six days later under police presence; In response to an interpellation, the Thurgau government denied this connection in November 2018.

Investigation commission and report 2017–2018

As a result of the eviction, a commission of inquiry was set up on behalf of the Thurgau government, headed by the former Zug government councilor Hanspeter Uster . Its report was presented on October 31, 2018.

According to the report, the authorities were unsure how to deal with the von Hefenhofen farmer due to repeated death threats and assaults, also out of concern for the safety of the employees. In addition, communication between the authorities did not work. Differences of opinion between authorities also meant that animal welfare could no longer be guaranteed. Their insecurities, in turn, reinforced the farmer in his actions: «Everyone was afraid of [him]. He can do anything and nothing ever happens ». One of the reasons why it happened like this is the assessment that outside his court there is no danger from him. Nevertheless, he was able to threaten canton authorities to the extent that, for example, due to an alarm, the administration building of the DIV responsible for him had to be closed, as happened in April 2013.

The cantonal government accused the commission of not using its options effectively, otherwise at least a partial animal keeping ban could have been enforced as early as 2007 to 2009.

The report comes to the conclusion that the DIV should have recognized beforehand that in this case cooperation with the farmer in the form of mediation or similar measures would have been unsuccessful; rather, action should have been taken "quickly and purposefully". The media escalation in 2017, beginning with the photo reportage of Blick and the dissolution of the courtyard, was almost perceived as a relief.

According to the District President of Thurgau, Cornelia Komposch , the final report left the Thurgau government “affected or shaken”. The government accepted the investigation report, but took the position that wrong decisions and omissions could not be blamed on an office or person, so the Hefenhofen case did not have any personal consequences.

At the press conference, the head of the commission, Hanspeter Uster, recommended optimizing animal welfare in the canton of Thurgau. In particular, an animal welfare commission is to be founded in addition to improved legal support for the veterinary office . An animal welfare umbrella organization with the right to lodge a complaint is also desired. The government indicated its readiness to take up several proposals in this regard and for its part already decided on eight measures that were within its competence. Among other things, the canton police are to be called in in the future in the event of threats and police officers are to be made aware of animal welfare issues.

Responses to the investigation

Animal welfare

Heinz Lienhard, President of the Swiss Animal Welfare Organization (STS) is of the opinion that the problems cannot be solved by restructuring the administration; the problem is that the Canton of Thurgau does not support animal welfare financially: Parliament and governments are not ready to do something that costs. As a result, no “disproportionate”, because expensive, measures have been considered in the past. He himself knew nothing of the scope of this case in advance.

Erwin Kessler (VgT) regarded the announced improvements as a result of the investigation report as “great blah blah”, especially because the people responsible for them, the cantonal veterinarian - who was the same for all years - and the government councilor Walter Schönholzer are allowed to continue to serve.

Politician

The cost of the examination was 818,000 francs. On the part of the cantonal councilors, Jost Rüegg (Greens) welcomed the right to investigate, but he, like other cantonal councilors (such as Ueli Fisch, GLP or Hermann Lei , SVP ) criticized the cost of the investigation report, which could have been cheaper for the findings presented . That is "too much money to realize that it needs an additional lawyer and a specialist group for animal welfare cases," said Hermann Lei, who also defended the cantonal veterinarian: He may have had too little support. Pascal Schmid (SVP) criticized mistakes, in particular deadlines were missed, procedural errors were committed and unsuitable orders were issued, with the result that the total ban on keeping animals could not be enforced earlier.

media

Christian Kamm, member of the editorial board of the Thurgauer Zeitung , criticized the fact that the investigation concentrates only on procedures, processes and so on and less on personnel errors. According to him, old government councilor Schläpfer, who had to do with this case throughout his term in office, could have achieved more: There was a lack of determined leadership. Even if the cantonal veterinarian cannot be ascribed sole responsibility, he should still have resigned: He could no longer “devoid of any authority, nor perform his office meaningfully”. By failing, the government shows that it is "back on the old track: it is better not to offend anyone and not draw any conclusions." An unhealthy closeness between authorities and citizens made the whole thing possible in the first place - which is symptomatic of many small and medium-sized cantons, you know each other, you take it easy, you help each other out of a mess - says Samuel Schmid, editor-in-chief of the St. Galler Tagblatt : The problems are not the laws, but their implementation.

Political Consequences

As a result, the Federal Council decided that from 2020, instead of the previous 10 percent, 40 percent of all controls will have to be carried out unannounced, with the focus on companies with deficiencies.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ This is the usual term used in the media when it comes to the case itself. The commission of inquiry commissioned to do this calls it a "case of the UK animal keeper"
  2. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Jörg Krummenacher / NZZ : "Hosenscheisser", threats with the pistol and slaughter: the file on the horse torturer from Hefenhofen, part 1 . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . ( tagblatt.ch [accessed on November 29, 2018] (first published in the NZZ)).
  3. ↑ a b c d e Christof Krapf: Chronicle of the Hefenhofen case: wrestling with authorities and the judiciary for 20 years . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . ( tagblatt.ch [accessed on December 3, 2018]).
  4. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Thomas Wunderlin: "You damned filthy bastard, I kill you": How the horse breeder von Hefenhofen became a horror . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . ( tagblatt.ch [accessed on November 29, 2018]).
  5. ↑ SDA: Thurgau animal owner condemned . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . November 26, 2009 ( vgt.ch [PDF]).
  6. ↑ a b c Thomas Wunderlin: The loud laugh of the horse breeder: The omissions of the authorities in the Hefenhofen case . In: Aargauer Zeitung . ( aargauerzeitung.ch [accessed on December 4, 2018]).
  7. ↑ 6B_711 / 2008 of April 2, 2009. Federal Court, accessed on December 4, 2018 .
  8. ↑ Pascal Ritter: The Swiss Army bought Ulrich K., a horse tormentor . In: Aargauer Zeitung . ( aargauerzeitung.ch [accessed on December 3, 2018]).
  9. ↑ 6B_592 / 2011 of December 5, 2011. Federal Supreme Court, accessed on December 4, 2018 .
  10. ↑ a b c d e f g Jörg Krummenacher: The animal tormentor mocked the authorities . In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung . October 31, 2018, ISSN  0376-6829 ( nzz.ch [accessed November 29, 2018]).
  11. ↑ Marco Latzer: Terrifying photos from Tierquälerhof Hefenhofen TG . In: look . August 2, 2017 ( archive.org [accessed December 4, 2018] Original message, from archive.org; note: photos are disturbing).
  12. ↑ a b c Silvan Meile: The Thurgau politics poses the question of guilt in the Hefenhofen case . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . ( tagblatt.ch [accessed on December 3, 2018]).
  13. ↑ Jörg Krummenacher: Hefenhofen, Jan Ullrich and the intransparency . In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung . September 12, 2017, ISSN  0376-6829 ( nzz.ch [accessed December 4, 2018]).
  14. ↑ a b c d e f g h Jörg Krummenacher / Neue Zürcher Zeitung: Hefenhofen files - Part 2: How a convicted animal abuser could reign for years . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . ( tagblatt.ch [accessed on November 29, 2018] (first published in the NZZ)).
  15. ↑ a b Silvan Meile: Animal protection: A large part of the animals from Hefenhofen have already been slaughtered . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . ( tagblatt.ch [accessed on December 3, 2018]).
  16. ↑ 300 tortured animals removed - owner is not allowed to return to the farm for the time being . In: Aargauer Zeitung . ( aargauerzeitung.ch [accessed on December 4, 2018] ( SDA message)).
  17. ↑ Pascal Ritter: The first Rössli from the Quälhof was sold for 1200 francs - now the buyer is speaking . In: Aargauer Zeitung . ( aargauerzeitung.ch [accessed on December 3, 2018]).
  18. ↑ Obituary notice . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . May 3, 2017 (corresponding obituary notice on the father).
  19. ↑ a b c d Jörg Krummenacher / Neue Zürcher Zeitung: Hefenhofen files - Part 3: The fight for money . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . ( tagblatt.ch [accessed on November 29, 2018] (first published in the NZZ)).
  20. ↑ Manuel Nagel: Entrepreneur in Hefenhofen has another "Gschiss" with travelers . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . ( tagblatt.ch [accessed on December 4, 2018]).
  21. ^ Sebastian Keller: Hefenhofen - the president of the Swiss animal welfare organization criticizes the canton: "In Thurgau animal welfare must not cost anything" . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . ( tagblatt.ch [accessed on December 4, 2018]).
  22. ↑ Thomas Wunderlin, Sebastian Keller: Hefenhofen: Thurgau politicians comment on the final report . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . ( tagblatt.ch [accessed on December 3, 2018]).
  23. ^ Christian Kamm: Hefenhofen case: It is a mistake that the canton veterinarian remains in office . In: Thurgauer Zeitung . ( tagblatt.ch [accessed on December 3, 2018]).
  24. ↑ Stefan Schmid: Lead article: Hefenhofen is everywhere . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . ( tagblatt.ch [accessed on December 3, 2018]).