Permanent Removal of an Animal From the Custody of the Owner
Articles of the Animal Protection Act concerning the possibility of the removal of an animal from the custody of the animal's owner or keeper are as follows:
Powers of inspectors:
Article 64
When implementing supervision, the competent inspector shall:
...
3. temporarily remove from the custody of its owner or keeper an animal which is in a condition suggesting that it is enduring pain and suffering, feeling great fear, that it is injured, or that further living in the same conditions would be associated with incurable pain ,
...
6. issue a receipt for the temporarily removed animal referred to in item 3 of this Article and for the temporarily seized objects and documents referred to in item 4 of this Article, and shall place the removed animal in an animal shelter.
Article 65
(1) Temporarily removed animal referred to in item 3 of Article 64 of this Act may be returned to its owner if the animal keeping requirements determined by the provisions of this Act are met, or otherwise it will be placed in an animal shelter.
(2) If an animal cannot be taken care of in one of the ways specified in paragraph 1 of this Article, the animal may be humanely killed at the expense of the owner.
Article 66 (Official Gazzette 37/13, 125/13)
(1) A legal person shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine from HRK 50.000,00 to HRK 100.000,00 for:
1. killing animals, subjecting them to pain, suffering and injury, and intentionally exposing them to fear (Article 4, paragraph 1),
...
(4) In addition to a fine imposed on a natural person for an offence referred to in paragraph 1, item 1 of this Article, committed in relation to a companion animal for the second time, there shall be applied a protective measure of removing the companion animal from the custody of the person concerned and prohibiting that person from acquiring another animal.
AFC's Opinion and proposal: During the work of the Committee for the Amendment of the Animal Protection Act 2015/2016, we proposed amendments to Articles 64 and 65:
permanent instead of temporary removal of an animal from the custody of its owner or keeper, and
not to wait for the animal to be injured for the second time or killed to remove it from the custody of its owner or keeper or to prohibit them from acquiring another animal.
We have supported a similar proposal of one of the members of the Committee who is a veterinary inspector regarding the powers of inspectors in Article 64 of the Animal Protection Act. The proposed amendments to this provision would authorise inspectors to temporarily remove not only an animal which is "in a condition suggesting that it is enduring pain and suffering, feeling great fear, that it is injured, or that further living in the same conditions would be associated with incurable pain", but also an animal which is "neglected in terms of health, housing, nourishment, and care, but is not enduring pain, suffering, or feeling great fear".
Thus formulated provision also authorises a temporary removal of an animal neglected in terms of health, housing, nourishment, and care. This is a significant step forward from the current version of the Act because it takes into consideration a problem often present in professional work and which makes it impossible for inspectors or municipal workers to take measures which would lead to the protection of animal welfare.
Moreover, we have emphasised the need to prescribe by the provision of this Act the possibility of a permanent removal of an animal from the custody of its owner or keeper.
Explanation: Currently, as the veterinary inspector stated: "In order for an animal to be permanently removed from its owner or keeper, a special court procedure has to be undertaken. Before initiating the procedure, a protective measure of a permanent removal of an animal from its owner or keeper pursuant to Article 50, paragraph 2 of the Misdemeanor Act (Official Gazzette, 107/07, 39/13, 157/13) has to be requested from the court. Such a measure is proscribed in duration which cannot be longer than 1 year. The removed animal is the subject of the proceedings and as such is subject to a public sale by auction, which additionally renders the procedure more difficult."
Because the current procedure of the court-ordered removal of an animal from its owner or keeper limits the work of inspectors and municipal workers, and the complexity, longevity, and obligation to return an animal to its owner or keeper after the maximum of one year makes it impossible for them to efficiently help an animal, we propose that Article 50, paragraph 2 of the Misdemeanor Act be amended in such a way that it proscribes the possibility of a permanent instead of a temporary removal of an animal from its owner or keeper.
There have been cases of continuous animal abuse (for instance, a dog whose neck got infected from a chain embedded deep into it, a starved animal, etc.) when it is necessary to enable a permanent removal of an animal from its owner or keeper and find an owner who can ensure adequate living conditions for the animal.
The penal provisions of the Article 66 of the Animal Protection Act impose a fine to a legal person for: "1. killing animals, subjecting them to pain, suffering and injury, and intentionally exposing them to fear (Article 4, paragraph 1)," adding: "In addition to a fine imposed on a natural person for an offence referred to in paragraph 1, item 1, of this Article, committed in relation to a companion animal for the second time, there shall be applied a protective measure of removing the companion animal from the custody of the person concerned and prohibiting that person from acquiring another animal."
Experience shows there are cases when the possibility of only a temporary removal of an animal considerably damages its welfare and even poses danger for its health and life. This can particulary be seen in the possibility of killing an animal for the second time, or committing an offence by subjecting animals to pain, suffering, or intentionaly exposing them to fear. Only in those cases can "a protective measure of removing the companion animal from the custody of the person concerned and prohibiting that person from acquiring another animal" be applied. Such provisions, unfortunately, benefit animal abusers.
The case of Ostoja Babic confirms this statement. He clubbed his dog to death in an extremely cruel way, with an iron bar, a pitchfork, and an axe. He did it because she was wagging her tail at the passers-by instead of barking at them. The unfortunate dog, disfigured by the blows, had been dying slowly and in agony until a police officer, called by a neighbour, came and stopped her suffering by shooting her. Thanks to the provisions of the Criminal Code, Babic was sentenced to five months in prison in 2006, which he served.
At that time, the Animal Protection Act, appealing to permanently prohibit animal abusers and killers from keeping animals, had not yet been passed. Waiting for an offence to be committed for the second time is neither educational nor encouraging for animal protection. It is absurd to wait that some Ostoja Babic gets a new dog and beats him to death in order for, pursuant to the current provisions of the Act, "a protective measure of removing the companion animal from the custody of the person concerned and prohibiting that person from acquiring another animal" to be applied.
Therefore we propose the following amendments:
- in Article 64 the expression "temporary" is deleted
- Article 65 is changed and reads:
Article 65
(1) Removed animal referred to in Article 64, item 3 of this Act must be placed in an animal shelter, adopted, or sold.
Article 66 is changed and reads:
Article 66
(1) A legal person shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine from HRK 50.000,00 to HRK 100.000,00 for:
1. killing animals, subjecting them to pain, suffering and injury, and intentionally exposing them to fear (Article 4, paragraph 1),
...
(4) In addition to a fine imposed on a natural person for an offence referred to in paragraph 1, item 1 of this Article, committed in relation to a companion animal for the second time, there shall be applied a protective measure of removing the companion animal permanently from the custody of the person concerned and prohibiting that person from acquiring another animal.
These amendments can facilitate the work of inspectors and municipal workers to a large extent. They can also make the protection of abused animals, or pets, better.
These proposals are from 2015/2016, and are an addition to the same proposals by the AFC during the creation of the Animal Protection Act in 2006.
![Abused dog [ 42.84 Kb ]](/data/image_3_10744.jpg "Abused dog [ 42.84 Kb ]")
