Commentary on Judgment No. 37847 of 2023: The Notion of Necessity in the Crime of Animal Killing

The recent judgment No. 37847 of June 15, 2023, by the Court of Cassation addressed a highly relevant issue in criminal law, namely the definition of 'necessity' in the application of Article 544-bis of the Penal Code, concerning offenses against animal welfare. This ruling offers important clarification on when the crime of animal killing can be excluded, a topic that sparks considerable legal and social controversy.

The Notion of Necessity According to Article 544-bis of the Penal Code

The Court clarified that the notion of 'necessity,' which allows for the exclusion of the crime of animal killing, is not limited solely to the state of necessity provided for by Article 54 of the Penal Code. In fact, it also encompasses other situations where the killing of an animal is motivated by the need to avert an imminent danger or to prevent the aggravation of harm to persons or property. This broadening of the concept of necessity is crucial for ensuring a fair application of the law, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case.

Offenses against animal welfare - Offense under Article 544-bis of the Penal Code - Notion of 'necessity' - Identification. In matters of offenses against animal welfare, the notion of 'necessity' that excludes the applicability of the crime of animal killing under Article 544-bis of the Penal Code includes not only the state of necessity under Article 54 of the Penal Code but also any other situation that leads to the killing of an animal to avert an imminent danger or to prevent the aggravation of harm to oneself or others, or to one's own property, when such harm the agent deems otherwise unavoidable. (In its reasoning, the Court added that the assessment of the non-necessity of the act, or rather cruelty, constitutes a question of fact, reviewable on appeal within the limits established by Article 606 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

Practical Consequences of the Judgment

This judgment has significant practical implications, as it clarifies that the assessment of the necessity of an action can vary depending on the circumstances. Emergency situations, where an animal must be killed to prevent harm to people or property, can now be evaluated with greater attention. This approach allows for the avoidance of punishment for those who act to safeguard their own safety or that of others.

• Clarity on the delimitation of the concept of necessity.
• Possibility of applying a more flexible assessment in particular situations.
• Recognition of the right to protect oneself and others.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 37847 of 2023 represents a significant step towards a greater understanding and application of the law concerning offenses against animal welfare. The definition of 'necessity' is now presented as broader and more attentive to diverse factual situations, thus allowing for a fairer and more proportionate assessment in cases of animal killing. It remains essential that each case be examined carefully, considering the specific circumstances and respect for animal life.