“The authorities present a photo of the animal in the animal quarters, which clearly shows a different animal than the cat kept by the complainant.” The sentence was as clear as day, and yet it was extremely puzzling what it was supposed to say in the decision of the Vienna Administrative Court. The same decision resulted in the said complainant having to pay around 5,000 euros at the animal quarters in return for the said cat being handed over – because the animal, “clear” non-identity or not, was said to have been the cat kept by the complainant.
After the Administrative Court (VwGH) took the obvious contradiction as an opportunity to overturn the decision, the administrative court has now explained, without contradiction, why the man has to pay on the second attempt.
The man had taken over the cat from an acquaintance, which she – the animal – apparently didn’t particularly like. The cat initially hid in the apartment, but then escaped at a time that can no longer be determined. What is certain is that an injured cat was found in the bushes in front of the man’s address five days after the handover. On the same day she was transported to the Erdberg animal clinic, where she received medical care. Cost: 3130.06 euros.
The woman found out about the discovery and informed the man that he could get the cat from the animal shelter. When he heard that he would have to pay 277 euros – of course only the woman knew this amount – he said he would not pick up the animal. He doesn’t have any money. At the woman’s insistence, he went anyway. But he refused to take the cat with him because, according to him, it wasn’t his. The costs at stake were also different than what the woman had announced: 66.39 euros were incurred for the transport to the animal quarters and 1,863.37 euros for the accommodation there. Together with the clinic bill, it came to 5059.82 euros.
The magistrate ordered the man, as the cat’s owner, to pay this amount. He defended himself with a complaint to the administrative court, where several inconsistencies arose. The man claimed that the cat had only escaped from him at a time when the sick animal had already been found in the bushes – for the court this was a mere protective claim that was intended to conceal the fact that the man was not considered the responsible owner of the cat and simply did not want to pay. Presumably that’s exactly why he presented a photo of another cat at the animal quarters – an attempt by the defense that was “not entirely based on life experience”. So the court confirmed the 5,000 euro decision.
The Administrative Court was still concerned about why the sentence quoted at the beginning was written in the minutes without thinking about it, according to which the escaped cat and the found cat were “clearly” two different animals. Due to an extraordinary appeal by the owner against his will, the Supreme Court reproached the court for not having examined all the evidence taken. It lacked a clear and concise summary of the court’s considerations – and overturned its decision for violating procedural rules, compliance with which might have led to a different result (Ra 2025/02/0148).
The court now regrets: The “contradictions of the cats depicted in photos” shown by the Administrative Court are (unfortunately) an expression of the difficulty of identifying cats in images of different origins and quality.” And after it has negotiated again orally, it improves: piece by piece, it lists the arguments why it is so sure that it has an owner in front of it who wanted to get rid of the animal. New addition: He went to the animal shelter without a box, so he couldn’t have taken the cat with him in the first place. The man has to pay, the decision is final. A further appeal to the VwGH would theoretically be possible.
