Post by account_disabled on Jan 18, 2024 6:20:46 GMT -5
The Provincial Court (AP) of Madrid has revoked the sentence against the Comprehensive Animal Protection Center of Rivas-Vaciamadrid and its legal representative by ruling that they did not commit a minor crime of misappropriation by refusing to deliver a stray cat without an identification chip to whom She claimed to be its owner since the center acted for the benefit of the animal's well-being and protection.
The plaintiff is a person who usually feeds stray cats. One day she asked the Rivas-Vaci Whatsapp Number List amadrid Comprehensive Animal Protection Center (CIPAR) to come pick up a cat about 7 years old, who was sick, from her home.
CIPAR is a center that pays attention to stray animals and those that have owners. When they receive an animal, the first thing they do is record the microchip on the animal, to inform the owner of the permanence of their pet at the center. The veterinarian who examined the cat collected from the complainant's home verified the lack of presence of an identification chip on the animal. Since there was no chip on the animal that would reflect its ownership, the Center refused to return the cat to the woman under the criterion that the presence of a “chip” on the animal determines its ownership.
Likewise, when the animal arrived at the veterinary center, it had to be treated for the diseases it suffered from, typical of stray cats, recovering in the facilities. The Center, ignoring the claims for return, planned the adoption of the animal, and offered the plaintiff the possibility of adopting the stray cat as long as the conditions of good care for the animal were met and the personal requirements for any adopter of an animal.
The plaintiff is a person who usually feeds stray cats. One day she asked the Rivas-Vaci Whatsapp Number List amadrid Comprehensive Animal Protection Center (CIPAR) to come pick up a cat about 7 years old, who was sick, from her home.
CIPAR is a center that pays attention to stray animals and those that have owners. When they receive an animal, the first thing they do is record the microchip on the animal, to inform the owner of the permanence of their pet at the center. The veterinarian who examined the cat collected from the complainant's home verified the lack of presence of an identification chip on the animal. Since there was no chip on the animal that would reflect its ownership, the Center refused to return the cat to the woman under the criterion that the presence of a “chip” on the animal determines its ownership.
Likewise, when the animal arrived at the veterinary center, it had to be treated for the diseases it suffered from, typical of stray cats, recovering in the facilities. The Center, ignoring the claims for return, planned the adoption of the animal, and offered the plaintiff the possibility of adopting the stray cat as long as the conditions of good care for the animal were met and the personal requirements for any adopter of an animal.