If I say animal cruelty, most people imagine dogs with broken spirits and beaten bodies, or perhaps cats. Not by chance: the media takes up these cases depending on how horrifying they are. Reports aiming to increase news value have several side effects: they keep people believing that animal cruelty can only be committed against dogs and cats, they make people believe that animal cruelty happens when the dog (cat) can barely drag itself, and the misinformed people therefore do not realize that by certain acts or omissions not mentioned in the media, they commit animal cruelty, which can have very serious consequences.
Animal cruelty is specifically prohibited and punished by two laws: on the one hand, the abuse of vertebrate animals, the inappropriate treatment applied to them, their tethering, and abandonment are prohibited by Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code (Btk.), while on the other hand, all animal cruelty is prohibited by the Animal Protection Act serving as the code of animal welfare laws, Act XXVIII of 1998 on the Protection and Humane Treatment of Animals (Átv.). If someone commits an act prohibited by both laws, they must bear the consequences of breaking both laws.
According to Section 244 (1) of the Btk., "whoever
- a) unjustifiably mistreats a vertebrate animal, or applies unjustified treatment to a vertebrate animal which is capable of causing permanent health damage or death to it,
- b) drives away, abandons, or exposes their vertebrate or dangerous animal,
shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years for a misdemeanor.
(2) The punishment is imprisonment for up to three years for a felony if the animal cruelty
- a) causes particular suffering to the animal, or
- b) causes permanent health damage or death to multiple animals."
The scope of possible victims of abuse and treatment fulfilling the criminal offense is limited by the law to animals that have the highest level of development, possessing an internal skeletal system. Neither the Btk. nor the Átv. defines the concept of an animal, but it can be inferred from the scope of the Átv.: animals that are kept or used for economic benefit; animals used for research or experimental purposes, animals kept for diagnostic purposes and vaccine production, animals treated as gene banks, vertebrate animals genetically modified by genetic engineering, as well as animals kept for scientific dissemination and educational demonstration purposes; animals kept for competition and sporting purposes; herding dogs, guard, protection, rescue, signaling, guide, disabled assist, and therapy dogs; animals used for hunting, animals used for tricks or exhibition purposes; animals serving the tasks of the Hungarian Defence Forces, law enforcement agencies, the National Tax and Customs Administration, national security services, and public duty guarding services; pets; dangerous animals, stray individuals of domesticated animals; animals living in zoos, game reserves, and animal parks (breeding animals), as well as any individuals of wild species kept captive for any purpose.
The Btk. further narrows the possible victims to dangerous animals as defined in the joint decree 8/1999. (VIII.13.) KöM-FVM-NKÖM-BM on vertebrate and dangerous animals and the detailed rules of their keeping authorization. The justification of this narrowing has recently been questioned when RTL Klub publicly broadcast on November 7, 2016, in the show Konyhafőnök, how contestants mercilessly kill lobsters. Lobsters belong to the phylum Arthropoda and do not have a backbone, so even if we question this on humane grounds, it is not punishable under criminal law that a contestant repeatedly stabbed the animal with a knife hesitantly, and another tried to pry apart the head-thorax from the abdomen of the still living animal. However, these acts do constitute animal cruelty as defined in the Átv.
Abuse of a vertebrate animal and unlawful treatment do not occur through the actual manifestation of physical pain or other consequences (permanent damage, death). If the act is capable of causing permanent damage or death to the animal, the crime is completed and realized. According to court practice, any violent impact on the animal is considered abuse, even if it does not cause bodily injury. The legislator ties criminal sanctioning not to the pain sensation or result achieved in the animal, but to the behavior of the perpetrator. Therefore, animal cruelty does not occur when we see the tormented beast as a "result," consequence, but when the abuse of the still intact animal, or its improper treatment, begins.
Another perpetrating behavior capable of causing permanent health damage or death, falling under the concept of treatment, includes every physical impact or keeping, care omission on the animal that cannot be classified as abuse but still causes the animal’s suffering. What can this be? Starving the animal, neglecting a certain medical treatment, which omission may cause permanent health damage or death to the animal. So it does not necessarily cause it, but is suitable for causing it.
The legislator requires the unjustifiability of the above behaviors. The question arises as to when treatment causing permanent health damage or death to the animal can be justified. According to judicial practice, justification may be, for example, the defense against the animal’s attack, but justification must always be examined on a case-by-case basis. If abuse or treatment is capable of producing the result, and the result – the animal’s death or permanent health damage – has occurred, this circumstance may be considered an aggravating factor when imposing punishment.
A special fact pattern is the expulsion, abandonment, or release of the animal, i.e., any behavior as a result of which the possession right over the animal ceases. While abuse and improper treatment can be committed by anyone, only the animal keeper can expel, abandon, or release the animal. According to Section 3, point 1 of the Átv., the keeper is the animal’s owner, or the person who cares for or supervises the animal or animal stock. Both the Criminal Code and the Átv. prohibit these behaviors, so the perpetrator must bear the consequences defined in both the Criminal Code and the Átv. The legislator’s intention is to prevent the animal’s vulnerable situation and the danger caused thereby, thus this fact pattern applies not only to vertebrate but also to dangerous animals.
The crime of animal cruelty can only be committed intentionally, with direct or eventual intent. The perpetrator’s awareness extends to the fact that the animal is vertebrate or dangerous, and the act is capable of causing the consequences prohibited by law; furthermore, the perpetrator either intends the consequences (the animal’s death, permanent health damage) or at least accepts them. Acceptance must also be considered in cases where the perpetrator might prefer the consequences not to occur but fails to do anything about it and only relies on luck or chance, i.e., has no reasonable basis for hope. When imposing punishment, the circumstance whether the intent arose from premeditation (e.g., premeditated murder), or from sudden intent (e.g., murder committed in a strong emotional state) may also be taken into account.
The animal abuser’s knowledge and intent need only extend to the above; it is not necessary for them to also be aware that their act constitutes a crime. Ignorance of the law does not exempt from liability.
In the case of the qualified facts (Criminal Code Section 244 (2)), the legislator does not require intent. What does this mean? The qualified case of animal cruelty can be committed through negligence if the perpetrator does not foresee the consequences and thus does not emotionally relate to them, but causes particular suffering to the animal, or causes permanent health damage or death to at least two animals.
The phrase “particular suffering” can be established for acts involving significantly greater than average, extraordinary brutality, or causing significantly greater physical or psychological torment to the animal’s bodily integrity, organism, or behavior than average. An example is when the abuse is prolonged or drawn out, or when the animal’s suffering is visibly extraordinary.
Animal cruelty mostly arises from keeping dogs, abandoning dogs, driving them away, exposing them, starving them, complete neglect, health damage, and poisoning. The mass poisoning of cats has already appeared in almost every settlement and district, however, proving this is not resolved, and it is not included in the number of cases handled by other authorities or animal protection organizations. The experience of both authorities and animal protection organizations is that there are fewer cases where the animal abuser is driven by intent to harm or cruelty (these cases are taken up by the media), the majority of offenders are characterized by negligence, and do not even consider that through their carelessness they are committing the crime of animal cruelty. Since ignorance of the law does not exempt, they must take responsibility in any case.
What can we do to reduce the number of animal cruelty cases? If anyone observes neglected keeping of an animal, they should immediately report it to the notary as the animal protection authority, to the police station as the authority proceeding in the case of animal cruelty crime, or to another animal protection organization. The work of authorities and organizations is eased if the reporter also attaches a photo. If negligent animal keeping is investigated in time, it can be prevented that poor keeping conditions turn into criminal animal cruelty. This way, the animal can be removed from poor conditions sooner, and while the keeper's responsibility for violating animal protection laws may remain, they are exempt from criminal consequences. A common problem is also that when moving, the keeper leaves their dog behind without further care. If someone moves to a place where they cannot take the dog with them and cannot care for it in the future, they can also turn to the notary, the police, or animal protection organizations, who will place the dog and thus prevent animal cruelty from occurring, prevent the dog from being left alone, and start criminal proceedings against the keeper.
Article prepared by: Dr. Csilla Nagy (animal protection lawyer)
