On March 23rd at 6 p.m. on ORF 2
Vienna (OTS) – Peter Resetarits deals with the following cases in the latest “Citizen Lawyer” issue on Saturday, March 23, 2024, at 6 p.m. on ORF 2:
Living near the shooting range – Is there too much and too loud shooting in Vienna-Stammersdorf?
“Shots are fired all day long, it sounds like war”: This is how residents describe their everyday lives near the Stammersdorf shooting range in Vienna. It has been there for 100 years, but since not only the army has been shooting there, but also the police since 2018, the noise pollution has become unbearable. Attorney Gaby Schwarz stands on the side of those affected by noise and discusses solutions with the spokesman for the Ministry of Defense.
Dispute over agreement – Is a municipality not meeting its payment obligations?
In 2017, the municipality of Pressbaum had new water and sewer pipes laid on the B. family’s property and committed to paying almost 7,000 euros annually, including index adjustment, for this easement. However, Mr B. now claims that the municipality is in default. The mayor of Pressbaum argues that the municipality has discovered a double transfer. In “Citizen’s Attorney,” the community’s lawyer promised to find a solution – and kept his word.
No place for bees – Has a beekeeper not fulfilled his purchase contract for a property?
The commercial beekeeper Harald S. has bought a piece of land from the market town of Sooß in Lower Austria to set up a beekeeping business. It was agreed in the purchase contract that he had to build an agricultural business there; otherwise, the municipality could buy the property back. The beekeeper has set up hives on his property, but from the community’s perspective he has not set up an agricultural business. Does this mean she has the right to buy the land back?
Unexpected general renovation
Young families who purchased apartments from BUWOG in 2021 contacted the editorial team in desperation. Quote: “It has turned out that BUWOG has failed for years to carry out the necessary renovation work on the residential complex, or instead to create sufficient reserves for this.” This would place existential burdens on young families. How did a court decide on the matter last week?