"Stray dogs may be euthanized or not? What law applies, who and how to change it
Stray dogs may be euthanized today under the Emergency Ordinance no. 155/2001, which allows the application of radical solutions if after the expiration of seven days accommodation claim or dogs were adopted HotNews.ro explained for legal professionals. So basically do not need any emergency ordinance as President Traian Basescu asked the Government or by a vote in Parliament to have a law. It is sufficient that the law be applied, subject to a decision of the Constitutional Court compel the legislature to make it predictable, but does not prohibit euthanasia.
The ordinance, which was approved by law in 2002, has undergone several changes in parliament since 2007, but they did not apply because the bill was sent for review, following the decision of the Constitutional Court. A final vote is expected next week, as Prime Minister Victor Ponta said.
What does the ordinance adopted by the Government of birth? (GEO no. 155/2001)
• Article 7 (1) If, after the expiry of the accommodation provided in art. 4 dogs have not been claimed or adopted as annexes. 4 and 5, they will be euthanized. (2) During the accommodation of dogs in shelters resolve claims priority claim dogs. (3) Dogs not claimed within two days can be adopted by individuals or adoption centers specially equipped and organized for this purpose.
In 2007, under the government Tariceanu (PNL, supported in parliament PSD), Senator Marius Marinescu, then the Conservative Party comes with a legislative initiative that requires changing art. May 7th aforementioned . Marinescu suggests that these dogs do not fieeutanasiati, but returned to the territory.
The project was adopted by the Senate on 12.12.2007, as proposed by Marinescu.
In the Chamber of Deputies, the bill for three years Baltesti but when one no longer strays question. On November 22 .2011, Chamber of Deputies, makes out a compromise : Euthanasia is left to local governments and proposed several options.
In short, the dogs have been adopted within unclaimed or "will be held in shelters, returned to the territory, euthanized, or a combination thereof, under decisions of local councils or the General Council after consultation of the population of the respective administrative-territorial unit."
To note that by 2011 no one raised the issue of the constitutionality of the law is still in force and adopted by government ordinance birth, changes made in Parliament that leave local government to choose between several options.
In Bucharest, the city with the largest population of dogs, no Videanu (mayor between 2004-2008) nor the mayor Oprescu (in 2008, out today in his second term) did not effectively enforce the law adopted by the Nastase government showing how it can be clear that local governments have done.
After the vote in the Chamber of Deputies, PSD and PNL, in full election campaign, notifies law in the Constitutional Court. Court grants in part neconstitionalitate referral, showing essentially the following: "The Court does not find any of the solutions provided by the unconstitutionality of the impugned law on the management of the phenomenon of stray dogs, but only sanctioned unpredictability of the law determined by the absence of an order of attachment - order that essentially would have to devote only solution ultimately euthanasia - and the clear and precise procedures that public authorities be kept in applying the proposed solutions.
Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, Law returned to the Senate for review in January 2012, where he lay, and was succeeded by various commissions over a year, until March 12, 2013, when it was adopted by the Senate the following form of the law That, in the text interests us, namely art. 7 no longer includes all euthanasia, or as a last resort.
What happens to dogs? They are kept in shelters or returned to the territory regulators as unpredictable as the Court criticized because no provision in which situations are kept in shelters, or in which cases are returned to the territory, leaving the issue to the discretion of the authority, ie just criticizing the Constitutional Court.
The project is currently in your decision Chamber of Deputies, where nothing happened. No notice at any commission, anything, on 18 March 2013.
How did the confusion that euthanasia is prohibited
In 2004, therefore after GEO. 155/2001 was adopted the Law 205/2004 on the protection of animals.
This law is sufficiently confused as to leave room for interpretation.
It would seem, in relation to the regulations it contains, that means only animals held. That in relation to the regulations, report that explicitly specify the scope specified in art. 1 paragraph. 1 "(1) This Law regulates the measures necessary to ensure the living conditions and welfare of the animals with or without owner".
On the other hand, para. 2 of art. 1 says "(2) Management of stray dogs in Romania is regulated by a special law" (I already GEO. 155/2001).
Article 2 of the Act states that "the purpose of this law, the animal owner means the owner, the person who holds any valid, and any natural or legal person in whose care the animal is."
Article 1. One talks about the owner (as defined in art. 2), while art. 1 paragraph. 2 master speaks.
The law on the one hand claim that the regulations they apply to animals "with or without owner" on the other hand clearly shows a paragraph below as "Management of stray dogs in Romania is regulated by a special law" (I already had GEO no. 155/2001).
It follows that a stray dog is found street stray dog, a stray dog is also found in shelters stray, but the owner (as in "any natural or legal person in whose care the animal is"). When the stray dog was picked from the street by the authorities and taken shelter gets dog owner, being the provisions of Law no. 205/2004.
So far no problem, since Law no. 205/2004 does not stipulate anything about euthanasia, neither give nor ba.
Given the interpretation of the law just as authorities in stray dogs in shelters need to ensure the same "living conditions and welfare 'regulated by Law no. 205/2004 (for example, an adequate shelter, sufficient food and water, can move enough, care and attention, not subject them to ill-treatment, such as kicking, torturing and similar cruelties etc.).
Well, the Law no. 205/2004 was amended in 2008, at the initiative of Mr. Senator Marius Marinescu being introduced art. 7 index 1, which states "It is forbidden to euthanize dogs, cats and other animals, except animals with incurable diseases identified by the veterinarian."
At this time there has been a problem of interpretation.
It appears that the authorities who keep animals in shelters, held Under the law no. 205/2004, could not, according to the new regulations of Law. 205/2004 to euthanize them.
On the other hand, the stray animals, according to GEO. 155/2001 had the right to euthanize them, GEO. 155/2001 as special regulations.
Probably did not know what and how to apply, whether or not they can, and they preferred not to be exposed. Others, such as the mayor of Tulcea and other local mayors have continued to apply the Nastase government ordinance that allows euthanasia.
Lawyers consulted by Hotnews.ro say is applicable GEO. 155/2001, euthanasia was more a matter of managing stray dogs (such as euthanasia and the provisions of the special law, Ordinance no. 155/2001) than a matter of providing 'living conditions and welfare, "to be applicable general law, namely Law no. 205/2004.
The only problem is that the current form of GEO no. 155/2001 raises the same issues of unconstitutionality retained by the Constitutional Court Decision no. 1/2012 on the draft amendment to the ordinance, except that the ordinance in its current form was not subject to censorship Court and its provisions are in force.
From this point of view, no referendum, no vote next week pending any new ordinance did not quite justified as long as the authorities have a law that they have only to apply.