A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation reaffirmed what was already known: the powers of animal protection officers are limited to monitoring crimes involving pets, not wild fauna.
The Court of Cassation has in fact upheld the conviction already handed down by the Court of Appeal of Florence against the LAC (League for the Abolition of Hunting). The case was contested and punished for having usurped a public function on multiple occasions (Article 347 of the Criminal Code); in fact, hunting controls had been carried out on three hunters by animal guards who evidently did not have the necessary qualifications. The Court of Cassation reaffirmed this qualification with its latest ruling, which only permits controls on pets.
Anuu Migratoristi, who reported the news in a press release, recalls that the ruling states: "Article 6, paragraph 2, of Law 189 of 2004, specifically provides that 'Monitoring compliance with this law and other regulations relating to animal protection is also entrusted, with regard to pets, within the limits of the duties assigned by the respective prefectural decrees of appointment, pursuant to Articles 55 and 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the private sworn guards of recognized animal protection and zoophilic associations.'" The ruling continues: "It is quite clear that the adverb "also" was used by the legislator with reference to "the private sworn guards of recognized animal protection and zoophilic associations," meaning that the powers of supervision otherwise granted to judicial police officers and agents are also extended to these figures, and not with reference to the phrase "with regard to pets.
It follows that these private security guards must be recognized with the power to monitor compliance with the provisions of the same law no. 189 of 2004 as well as the related functions of judicial police officer exclusively for the protection of "pet animals", i.e. domestic animals".
…therefore no jurisdiction over controls relating to wildlife and hunting.
To avoid misleading readers, it would be helpful if you clarified that, regarding the cited ruling, since it was not issued by a joint chamber, it can only be classified as an opinion. However, it can be overturned, as has recently happened, by other judicial chambers. Therefore, it is the legislator's sole responsibility to provide clarity on the legislation, not the judge, who merely provides an interpretation that is in no way consistent with case law. For this clarification, we thank the Grosseto Coordinator of the Animal Protection Guards of the Kronos Academy.
_______________________________________________
