Vorarlberg farmer permanently banned from keeping animals

A Vorarlberg farmer who left a cow with part of its tongue torn out without treatment has been permanently banned from keeping any animals, ORF reported. The Bregenz district authority imposed the ban, which has now been upheld by the Vorarlberg Administrative Court.

The case dates back to October 6, 2023, when part of the cow’s tongue was torn out during hoof care. The farmer, who worked on his father’s farm and was responsible for the animal, left it in the stable for four days without veterinary treatment. The cow was then slaughtered, and the injury was discovered and reported at the abattoir.

In January 2025, the Feldkirch Regional Court convicted the farmer of animal cruelty. It found that he had caused the cow unnecessary suffering by leaving it in the stable for several days without necessary veterinary help or appropriate pain medication. The Innsbruck Higher Regional Court upheld the conviction in July 2025.

The Bregenz district authority subsequently imposed a lifetime ban on keeping animals. The application was submitted by the responsible official veterinarian and the animal welfare ombudsperson. The farmer challenged the ban before the Administrative Court, which found the animal cruelty proven even though he had tried to present the facts differently during the hearing.

The court said the farmer had downplayed and trivialised the offence. He had again argued that proper veterinary treatment had not been possible and that the animal had ultimately eaten and drunk water.

This lack of insight increased the risk of further animal welfare violations, the court said. It found that the man posed a risk to all animals, meaning the ban could not be limited to particular species. It therefore applies to all vertebrates, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans, including shrimp.

The court also cited the farmer’s previous convictions for property damage and bodily harm, saying they were based on the same harmful character trait.

The district authority had to wait until the criminal conviction became final because imposing an administrative penalty for the same conduct could have violated the prohibition on double punishment. As the criminal penalty was final, the authority imposed no further punishment. The court said the animal-keeping ban was instead an administrative protective measure in the public interest of animal welfare.

The decision is final.