Cableway operation suspended by the authority: requirements for resuming service

If cableway operational safety is no longer assured or if there are reasonable grounds to assume that people's safety and health are at risk, § 91 Abs. 1 SeilbG requires the authority to order a complete or partial suspension. An accident does not have to have occurred. Further preparation must identify the findings underlying the decision and the precise scope of the order.

The operative part of the decision, its reasons, and the findings upon which it rests must be read. It must be recorded which operating areas are suspended, which defects the authority identifies, and which specific orders apply. The question of resumption is addressed by repairing a single component only to the extent that the relevant risk is resolved.

Each reason for suspension should be connected by the evidence to the measure completed and its verified result. For technical defects, this may include inspection reports concerning the affected parts, repair records, and updated technical documentation. The condition after the measure must be shown by the documents, which must also expressly identify unresolved safety issues.

Organisational causes require corresponding organisational evidence. Should the suspension concern the responsible operations manager, for example, a report on the mechanical installation alone will not suffice. Targeted clarification then needs to be given to staff responsibilities, required qualifications and safe operating procedures. A preparation recommendation is a defect-and-measures matrix; an identical list of supporting documents for every installation is not prescribed by § 91.

The installation type and the statutory allocation of responsibilities determine jurisdiction. The competent federal cableway authority is generally assigned funiculars, aerial tramways, gondola cableways and combined cableways by § 14 SeilbG. Unless the Act provides otherwise, § 13 generally assigns chairlifts, Sessellifte, Kombilifte and non-public cableways to the provincial governor. Sessellifte and Kombilifte denote distinct statutory installation categories in the Austrian Act.

For chairlifts, responsibility for operation must be distinguished from federal responsibility for concession and construction authorisation procedures. Statutory delegations may also matter, for example to the district administrative authority for drag lifts. Before applying to resume service, the authority named in the suspension decision must be compared with the current installation type and the applicable allocation of responsibilities.

§ 91 Abs. 2 SeilbG combines two requirements: permission from the authority and assured safety and order in cableway operation and traffic. The proposed scope of operation should be specified in the application, and an explanation of how the risks underlying the suspension were eliminated should be provided. An expert report serves as evidence for the authority's assessment.

Automatic clearance is not triggered even by a favourable report. Additional conditions must be imposed by the authority where necessary in the interests of safety. The permission decision must be checked for its scope and for requirements to be met before operations start or while they continue. A suspension under § 91 is not automatically lifted by an existing concession or an earlier operating permit.

Where only part of the operation was suspended, or a limited resumption is sought, the permitted scope must be clear. The proposed partial operation, including its interfaces with areas that remain closed, must be described to the authority. The possibility of partial suspension does not automatically entitle the company to reopen an area of its own choosing.

The required permission and the conditions to be observed should form the basis for planning a firm reopening date. No general duration for the resumption procedure is specified in § 91. Preparation may be affected by missing evidence, unresolved interfaces, or additional safety conditions. The actual case file and the competent authority's response determine the coordination of the date.

The decision, the installation's current condition, and evidence of risk remediation are brought together by legal preparation. Whether the requested scope of operation is sufficiently defined and which points still need explanation to the authority are examined. Separate assessment is required for objections to the original suspension, and remedying technical defects alone does not answer questions about an appeal against the suspension decision.

During the suspension, safety-related duties may continue. This was illustrated by the Tyrol Regional Administrative Court in its decision of 29 April 2025, LVwG-2024/49/1787-13, in proceedings concerning a subsequent withdrawal of a concession. Permission to resume operation was not granted by that decision. It does show, however, that careful assessment is still required for ordered safety measures and risks to people during the shutdown.