: In a case involving disciplinary actions, the Disciplinary Board for animal welfare criticized a veterinarian who participated in the after-care of a horse who had just undergone surgery. However, she was not issued a disciplinary action.
JO finds that the Disciplinary Board’s reasoning for its decision does not meet the requirements of the Administrative Act, since it, among other things, is so broad that it is impossible to comprehend what inadequacies the Board bases its criticism of the veterinarian on, and in what way these inadequacies constituted an error from a veterinary medicine perspective. In addition, JO criticizes the Board for basing its assessment on circumstances that have not expressly been pointed out by the notifier or by the Board. In its decision, JO also mentions the Board’s decision in relation to the burden of proof that applies in disciplinary cases.
In conclusion, JO finds that the processing of the case has not complied with the legal requirement that an agency that carries out public administrative tasks must be objective in its activities and finds that, all in all, the Disciplinary Board deserves serious criticism.