GROUNDS FOR ANIMAL RESCUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7(3) OF THE ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 21 AUGUST 1997 IN REGARD TO THE INSTITUTION OF A COLLISION OF DUTIES UNDER ARTICLE 26 § 5 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

Probacja Pub Date : 2021-12-31 DOI:10.5604/01.3001.0015.6041
Piotr Zakrzewski
{"title":"GROUNDS FOR ANIMAL RESCUE PURSUANT\nTO ARTICLE 7(3) OF THE ANIMAL PROTECTION\nACT OF 21 AUGUST 1997 IN REGARD TO THE\nINSTITUTION OF A COLLISION OF DUTIES UNDER\nARTICLE 26 § 5 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE","authors":"Piotr Zakrzewski","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0015.6041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the conditions for the emergency receipt of animal from the owner in accordance with Art. 7 sec. 3 of the Act of August 21, 1997 on the protection of animals and indicates the need to enrich them with the premises for excluding criminal liability under Art. 26 § 5 of the Penal Code. The main research problems of the study are the premises of the proper and legal emergency receipt of animal from the owner within the meaning of Art. 7 sec. 3 of the Act, including an indication of when such behaviour is legal and when it is illegal, and a detailed specification of the scope of responsibilities of the person who performs the collection of the animal towards the owner of the received animal. According to Art. 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Art. 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only law enforcement agencies, including the prosecutor, police officers and other bodies authorized by the law, may search the apartment / land. Authorized representatives of a social organization whose statutory purpose is to protect animals do not have this competence, therefore they are required to cooperate with police officers in the scope of searches. The article shows that in the event of the emergency receipt of animal from the owner in accordance with Art. 7 sec. 3 of the Act, in the absence of Police officers and with the opposition of the owner of the apartment / land, there is no violation of the legal interest of protection of the home if the perpetrator acts in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of proportionality underlying Art. 26 § 5 of the Criminal Code.\n\n","PeriodicalId":34028,"journal":{"name":"Probacja","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Probacja","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.6041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article discusses the conditions for the emergency receipt of animal from the owner in accordance with Art. 7 sec. 3 of the Act of August 21, 1997 on the protection of animals and indicates the need to enrich them with the premises for excluding criminal liability under Art. 26 § 5 of the Penal Code. The main research problems of the study are the premises of the proper and legal emergency receipt of animal from the owner within the meaning of Art. 7 sec. 3 of the Act, including an indication of when such behaviour is legal and when it is illegal, and a detailed specification of the scope of responsibilities of the person who performs the collection of the animal towards the owner of the received animal. According to Art. 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Art. 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only law enforcement agencies, including the prosecutor, police officers and other bodies authorized by the law, may search the apartment / land. Authorized representatives of a social organization whose statutory purpose is to protect animals do not have this competence, therefore they are required to cooperate with police officers in the scope of searches. The article shows that in the event of the emergency receipt of animal from the owner in accordance with Art. 7 sec. 3 of the Act, in the absence of Police officers and with the opposition of the owner of the apartment / land, there is no violation of the legal interest of protection of the home if the perpetrator acts in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of proportionality underlying Art. 26 § 5 of the Criminal Code.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据1997年8月21日动物保护法第7(3)条关于刑法第26条第5款规定的责任冲突制度的动物救援理由
该条讨论了根据1997年8月21日《动物保护法》第7条第3款从主人那里紧急接收动物的条件,并指出有必要根据《刑法典》第26条第5款为其提供免除刑事责任的条件。该研究的主要研究问题是,根据该法第7条第3款的规定,从动物主人那里适当合法地紧急接收动物的前提,包括表明这种行为何时合法,何时非法,以及执行动物采集的人员对所接收动物的所有者的责任范围的详细说明。根据《刑事诉讼法》第217条和《刑事诉讼法典》第220条,只有执法机构,包括检察官、警察和法律授权的其他机构,才能搜查公寓/土地。法定目的是保护动物的社会组织的授权代表不具备这一权限,因此他们必须在搜查范围内与警察合作。该条表明,如果根据该法第7条第3款的规定,在没有警察在场的情况下,在公寓/土地所有者的反对下,从主人那里紧急接收动物,如果行为人的行为符合《刑法》第26条第5款所依据的辅助性原则和相称性原则,则不违反保护家庭的法律利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The relationship between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and criminal behavior: a psychological profile of convicts serving custodial sentences. Pilot studies Basics of improving special protection for convicted persons – critical remarks Firmant and the problem of identifying a taxpayer in an organized criminal group Criminal law protection of religious freedom amid contemporary challenges and threats Forfission of an enterprise and the burd of proof in criminal process
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1