Zebu case: Dispute over position ended for the time being

Created: 12/21/2022, 4:27 p.m

A herd of zebu had to be abandoned.

The animals are originally native to India.

Symbol photo: dpa © Britta Pedersen

According to the veterinary office, a herd of Zebu cattle was not kept in a species-appropriate manner and they were confiscated.

The former owner sued, but the lawsuit has now been dismissed.

Hochbrück

– Five years ago, the veterinary office confiscated the zebu cattle of an animal owner from Hochbrück.

The administrative court in Munich confirmed the decision on costs issued by the authorities on Wednesday.

This puts an end to the long-standing dispute over the species-appropriate husbandry of the animals.

Or not?

The pre-Christmas period does not seem to bring the plaintiff any luck: on December 18, 2017, the district office had removed her cattle from a meadow on the Ingolstädter Landstraße in the south-west of Hochbrück – at least 150 of them.

"Because the herd hasn't been kept in a way that respects animal welfare for a long time," a spokeswoman for the authorities justified the "animal removal".

The animals were "threatened by cold, illness and suffering" and "not in good health", it was said at the time.

The cattle were housed “in a barn under good husbandry conditions”.

Accommodation cost over 31,000 euros

The accommodation was obviously not cheap.

More than 31,000 euros were incurred for this, reported the presiding administrative judge Dietmar Wolff.

Some of the animals had been slaughtered.

The veterinary office deducted the proceeds from the slaughter as well as the income from the sale of individual cattle.

The remaining 16,000 euros are "reasonable given the size of the herd", according to the judge's assessment.

Apparently the plaintiff saw things differently.

Although she did not attack the individual cost items, Wolff stated.

She justified her suit for annulment of the decision on costs by saying that she was not the owner of the zebu cattle.

However, this contradicts what you have said in previous proceedings.

Plaintiff did not appear in court

The Hochbrücker neither appeared at the hearing nor was she represented by a lawyer.

Her claim was therefore dismissed.

In addition to the accommodation costs, she has to bear the legal costs.

It is unclear whether she is able to do this: in another decision she had already been obliged to reimburse the costs of shelters for the cattle.

According to the representatives of the veterinary office, she also pays off the 8,000 euros – at 20 euros a month for more than 33 years.

Installment payments take a long time

Even if the representatives of the district office hold out the prospect of deferral and payment in installments for the 16,000 euros, it is doubtful whether the plaintiff can pay.

The taxpayer will probably have to take on a part, judge Wolff suspected.

At least the dispute between her and the veterinary office should be over with the verdict.

Unless the former cattle farmer appeals.

Apparently, an appeal is possible even if you do not appear at the first instance hearing.