2.9 million in damages

Courts Pass the Buck After Major Fire

The major fire in Traun: The judges, however, were divided on whether “many people”—which, according to case law, means at least 30—had been “placed in distress.”(Bild: Kerschbaummayr Werner)

You can understand it, or you don’t have to: A 23-year-old set an entire apartment building in Traun ablaze with a New Year’s Eve firework. But the trial didn’t take place until nearly a year later, because the Traun District Court and the Linz Regional Court had essentially passed the buck back and forth on the case. The issue at hand was how many people had been “placed in distress.”

The 23-year-old is set to appear in court on November 18 because a rocket he fired on New Year’s Eve set a multi-family residence in Traun on fire. He is charged with negligently causing a major fire. If convicted, he faces up to one year in prison or a fine of up to 720 daily rates.

Defendant Pleads Guilty
The man, who was 22 at the time of the incident, is alleged to have launched several fireworks rockets at the turn of the year 2025/2026. One of them struck a balcony on the third floor of an apartment building. Objects there began to burn, and within minutes the flames spread to the entire roof. The damage is estimated at just under 2.9 million euros. The defendant has pleaded guilty. He explained that a rocket had been blown by the wind in the direction of the building.

Trial Start Delayed
Thestartof thetrial was delayedsomewhat because the Traun District Court had initially declared itself without jurisdiction. This was because the criminal complaint referred to Section 170 (negligent causing of a conflagration), Paragraph 1. However, the court would have considered Section 170, Paragraph 2, to be appropriate. This provision applies when “many people”—which, according to case law, means at least 30—“were placed in distress,” explained a spokesperson for the Linz Regional Court.

13 Apartments Uninhabitable
Following the fire, 13 apartments in the building were temporarily uninhabitable. Since, on the one hand, it was unclear how many people were affected and, on the other hand, many did not provide information about their temporary housing, it was not possible to establish that “many people” were in “great distress.” The Linz Regional Court therefore ruled that, as originally intended, the less severe provision must be applied. The case will now proceed, as planned, to the district court.