[ad_1]
The abandoned dogs were confiscated from the kennel but decided to return
2020 The unmasking of the Širvintos multiplier on September 7 was one of the most famous cases of the multiplier scandal at the time. Specialists from the State Food and Veterinary Service (SFVS) who visited the Širvintos farm that day issued a verdict that the conditions for keeping the animals were unforgivable. More than 40 abandoned dogs were found on the Algis Ušackas farm, many parasites were found on their fur, and some of the animals had cropped ears.
Even before the officers showed up, the Širvintos plant was surrounded by concerned animal volunteers who helped expose the activities taking place at the site. They called the farm a slaughterhouse because of the horrific finds: a bag with dead puppies, skinned dog skins, bones and animal carcasses everywhere. The farmer himself did not agree with the accusations.
After specialists evaluated the conditions of keeping the animals, it was decided to confiscate the dogs and put them in shelters. Therefore, 25 breeding dogs were found in the Kaunas shelter and the “Noah” animal welfare house, but it is likely that they will not stay there. The representatives of the shelter shared yesterday their frustration over a court decision in favor of the animal breeder, who will return the animals to their owner.
Animal nursery in Širvintos
“It just came to our notice then. As we are not a party to the case, we only learned today that the Širvintos District Court has issued a ruling stating that A. Ušackas properly cared for the dogs that were taken from him and handed over to him. “Nojus” shelter on September 7. 2020. The court also ordered that the dogs be returned to A. Ušackas, ”reads the publication posted on the shelter’s page.
The question is: how will animal breeders proceed?
Shelters find it difficult to understand how that decision was made in court, because the first days when 25 dogs were taken away are remembered with horror: according to the shelter’s registry, he was “humiliated, tortured, the dogs kept in the dark (basement ) cages that not only had a lot of diseases, but some of them are still afraid to let people get close. “
The shelter hopes that this court ruling will not be the last and that the animals will not be returned to A. Ušackas, as their activities meet the definition of cruelty to animals. It is feared that animals returned to the breeder will continue to be exploited.
Animal nursery in Širvintos
“As this court ruling will take effect after 30 days, we have no doubt that the SFVS will appeal this flawed ruling and the appeals court will not remain indifferent to the cruel and inhumane behavior of the animal’s owner.” Imagine if such a court order went into effect, how could illegal animal breeders continue to treat animals in captivity? In general, the question arises, what is, according to the Širvintos District Court, cruelty to an animal?
We regret that the court deems it appropriate to treat animals for several years in a dark cellar and use them only for reproductive function, when they are not being treated for diseases and ectoparasites, when they are afraid of humans,
The court does not see cruelty to animals in this case
The complaint case was received in the Širvintos court on December 11, 2020. The trial of the case remotely began on March 3, 2021 and ended on May 18, 2021.
After Delfi journalists were asked to comment on the court’s decision, the National Courts Administration shared the trial judge’s comment on the procedural decision taken.
It states that after examining and evaluating the evidence gathered in the case, the court unequivocally concluded that A. Ušackas was reasonably prosecuted under article 346 (3) of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Republic of Lithuania for violating the Animal Welfare Law . and Protection requirements and breeders. After assessing the huge number of animals kept by A. Ušackas (more than 40 dogs), as well as the large-scale violations of the aforementioned legal acts, the court imposed the maximum fine established by law for these violations.
However, in this case, the court saw no reason to consider the established violations of pet care and animal husbandry as A. Ušackas’s cruel treatment of his pets or his torture, which caused them pain and suffering.
Animal nursery in Širvintos
In this case, the court did not find that the animals kept by A. Ušackas were hungry, thirsty, lying in their faeces, kept in pens that were too small, in the dark, that A. Ušackas had undergone mating procedures, or that they deliberately did not provide veterinary assistance when needed. Therefore, the court had no reason to consider the actions of A. Ušackas as cruel or tortuous treatment of his dogs.
It says that in this case the confiscation of dogs is not mandatory
Regarding the administrative sanction measure – confiscation of property, i.e. dogs of A. Ušackas – the court explains that the current law does not provide for the mandatory confiscation of property (animals) for violations committed by A. Ušackas in this case. The court did not find sufficient grounds to impose this administrative penalty measure in this case.
It was also taken into account that A. Ušackas had not been punished before for neglecting the dogs; previous scheduled inspections have not revealed any irregularities in dog care; part of the dogs, in general, are owned by his daughter R. Ušackaitė. According to the court, the confiscation of A. Ušackas’s dogs in this case would be a disproportionate measure.
Animal nursery in Širvintos
The court also wishes to note that such court findings are based on a judicial investigation of the evidence in the case, the cross-examination of 8 witnesses, the obtaining of extensive medical records on the health of the dogs, and other evidence-gathering activities that took place. within 2.5 months. lengthy court proceedings.
The ruling can be appealed to the Vilnius Regional Court within 20 days.
It is true that this is not the first time this year that it has been decided to return confiscated animals from those who have illegally bred dogs. The verdict announced by the court on January 28 in the elderly Swiss district of Jonava, Ratuš Jliai village, which was keeping 55 animals in inappropriate conditions, sparked the same resentment from the AP. This time he was fined 700 euros for cruel treatment of animals without confiscation of animals. We write it here.
[ad_2]
