Animal abuser from the Vulkaneifel region fails at the Higher Administrative Court with an urgent appeal against the revocation of his operating license

The stable operator – according to the Federal Association of Professional Riders, the business is a western stable – had been reported to the veterinary office by third parties for training methods contrary to animal welfare and was convicted of two counts of cruelty to animals in spring 2025. In the case of one horse, he had “given very rough rein aids and, out of crudeness and without sufficient reason, forced the horse into hyperflexion, which was accompanied by considerable pain”. He struck a second horse several times on the body and head with “a whip or a leather rein”. The man was aware that he had caused the horses considerable pain.

Due to this situation, the responsible district of Vulkaneifel withdrew the obligatory animal welfare permit for the commercial operation of a riding business. The reason given was that the man lacked the necessary reliability.

Application for urgent legal protection

Until a final ruling is issued in the matter after a legal dispute that could last for years, the man wanted to get his operating license back and filed an application for urgent legal protection. However, this failed before the Trier Administrative Court at the end of September 2025. The man then lodged an appeal with the Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Administrative Court, which the court in Koblenz rejected on the following grounds:

The comprehensive revocation of the license was not disproportionate. Insofar as the applicant is of the opinion that a partial revocation of the license – which only relates to the training with horses and the riding of horses, but not to the care and support of stabling horses – should also be used as a milder measure, as a complete revocation is not necessary, the court does not share this assessment. This is because the continued operation of horse care for livery horses also requires the applicant to be reliable due to the animal welfare licensing requirement for this business. However, this was lacking for the entire business.

The assumption of unreliability encompassing the entire horse operation applies irrespective of the fact that the applicant has so far shown disregard for the welfare of the horses solely in the context of training. This behavior manifests that he was not prepared to give priority to the welfare of the animals over his training goal – despite corresponding warnings in advance.

A continuing lack of understanding is also evident in his statements in the criminal proceedings, according to which the behavior he is accused of is a “suitable, necessary and appropriate training method”, the person must clarify his authority over the horse and, although he regrets his previous actions, certain behavior, e.g. the horse’s climbing, must be exorcised accordingly.

In these statements and the behavior shown, the applicant’s general attitude of placing his own “methods” above animal welfare in disregard of the animal welfare regulations is recognizable. It is also to be expected in the area of horse keeping – outside of training and riding – that there will be situations in which the horse does not obey (taking it to the paddock, leading it out of the box) and the applicant will again commit infringements in order to “drive out” this behavior from the horse, since an attitude contrary to animal welfare can be assumed overall.

You can read the press release from the Koblenz Higher Administrative Court in full here.

What does that mean?

The decisions by the administrative and higher administrative courts have not yet decided whether the operator will regain its operating license. A decision on this will be made in the main proceedings.

However, this usually takes years. Normally, the judgment is not yet legally binding as long as the proceedings are pending. However, if the authority is of the opinion that, for example, as in this case, animal welfare would be jeopardized by the suspensive effect, it has the option of ordering immediate enforcement and thus lifting the suspensive effect. This is what happened here.

The riding stable operator still had the opportunity to apply to the administrative court for urgent legal protection in order to be allowed to continue running his stable for the time being until the final judgment in the main case. The Administrative Court and, following an appeal by the riding stable operator, the Higher Administrative Court had to decide which arguments were more important – those of the operator, who feels his livelihood is threatened, or those of the state, which wants to protect the animals. In this case, the administrative courts followed the authorities’ arguments.

We have asked the responsible authority about the status of the main proceedings, but have not yet received any feedback.