Fundamental Rights Section identity of the respective persons are only known to him in exceptional cases and by the time the security authorities have arrived, they will have departed. However, the regulation regarding the moving forward of closing hours also fails completely in those cases in which the nuisance caused by the guests takes place in areas that are no longer included in the adequate vicinity of the entrance door. The lapse of the word 'directly', in the word sequence, 'through ... behaviour of guests (directly) in front of the business premises', effected by the Trade Law Amendment Act 1992, Federal Law Gazette no. 1993/29, expanded the spatial scope in which the guest behaviour is relevant for the moving forward of closing hours, however the content of the regulation continues to be so restrictive, that a legal execution of this standard can only effect the necessary improvements for neighbourhood protection in exceptional cases. In the Ombudsman Board Report 2003 on page 245, it is already pointed out that the execution of legally intended neighbourhood protection in the provision of Sect. 113 para. 5 Trade Law Amendment Act 1994 can barely be complied with and, in the opinion of the Ombudsman Board, it cannot be in the interest of the legislator, to retain provisions that are not implementable in the sense intended. While the reduced abutting owner rights in the Trade, Commerce and Industry Regulation Act bring with them an undesired enforcement deficit in public law, in the opinion of the Ombudsman Board, the civil law affirms this necessary, further neighbourhood protection in respect of the provisions of Sects. 364f ABGB (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Austrian Civil Code). For the justification of liability under neighbouring rights, it is not necessary for the courts that the neighbour carries out the disturbing actions himself. On the contrary, the behaviour of others is also attributed to him, if he puts up with the detrimental effect, although he is entitled to prevent it and would have been in a position to do so. It is sufficient that the detrimental effect is an attributable consequence of an operation set up on this property. It is then immaterial that the nuisance is ultimately based on the independent decision of a third party. If the innkeeper is therefore aware that the neighbouring property has already been disturbed by his guests on repeated occasions, he is obligated to ensure, through adequate means, that such actions are avoided in future. The innkeeper should have prevented the nuisance through suitable measures (refusal to serve alcoholic drinks or threat/imposing of 38