News Supreme Court rulings October 2013

The use of a bark collar is animal abuse

In its ruling No. 38034/2013, the Supreme Court affirmed that the use of a bark collar is to be considered a violation of a dog’s freedom. In fact, the Supreme Court makes it clear that such an instrument is not compatible with the need to ensure optimal conditions for the keeping and custody of the said animal. And again, the Courts of legitimacy have, likewise, specified that the use of a barking collar, in order to limit the dog’s harassing behavior, is among the devices capable of provoking its mistreatment and is likely to cause dangerous and often irreversible consequences in the animal itself.

What is the evidentiary value of the accident report?
The Civil Cassation Court in ruling no. 21161 of Sept. 17, 2013 ruled, that the legal value of a CAD, filled in incorrectly and deficiently, cannot be assessed for evidentiary purposes. In fact, the Supreme Court, stated that a claim assessment made on a CAD not containing a detailed and truthful description of the incident is not admissible because, such a statement, would present an overall inconsistent evidentiary picture. In fact, as the Justices of legitimacy point out, since there is an established and objective incompatibility between the fact as described and what happened, it is not possible to give the aforementioned CAD the confessional value that the same document filled out correctly would have.

Forcing the driver of a vehicle to stop constitutes private violence

The Supreme Court confirmed in ruling no. 23495/2013, that anyone who prevents a person who is in his vehicle from moving forward by parading in front of it commits private violence. The Justices of Legitimacy clarify that any behavior or attitude likely to instill fear and arouse concern of unjust harm in a subject, in order to induce the latter to do, tolerate or omit something, integrates the crime of private violence.