In the resolution of June 20, 2012 (I KZP 4/12), the Supreme Court ruled that the provision provided for in Art. 38 of the Act of 21 August 1997 on the Protection of Animals (Journal of Laws of 2003, No. 106, item 1002, as amended), the procedure for implementing a penal measure of forfeiture of an animal applies to any judgment of such a penal measure, regardless of the basis. its application if the law penalizing the act for which such forfeiture is provided clearly indicates that it concerns an animal, unless it also assumes a different mode of its execution or equally clearly assumes that it is the forfeiture of „things”. Since the Act of October 13, 1995 – Hunting Law (Journal of Laws of 2005, No. 127, item 1066, as amended) does not provide for the above exclusions, the forfeiture of a greyhound dog or a hybrid of this breed, ordered as part of a conviction for the offense specified in this Act is subject to execution under the principles set out in the Animal Protection Act. The forfeiture of each vertebrate animal is based on the Animal Protection Act, and the executor of the judgment is a social organization defending animal rights.
The case concerned the following facts. In the judgment of September 2, 2009, the District Court in S. found Rafał R. guilty of keeping a dog of the breed without the required permit in the town of Ł. from May 15, 2005 to June 15, 2009 chart, i.e. offenses under Art. 52 point 4 of the Act of October 13, 1995 – Hunting Law (Journal of Laws of 2005, No. 127, item 1066, as amended) and sentenced him to 3 months of restriction of liberty, and pursuant to Art. 44 § 6 of the Penal Code he also ordered the forfeiture of a greyhound dog to the State Treasury.
This judgment became final on September 10, 2009 and was then, in terms of the enforcement of the forfeiture of the animal – at an unspecified date – transmitted by an appropriate order issued pursuant to Art. 38 of the Act of August 21, 1997 on the protection of animals (Journal of Laws of 2003, No. 106, item 1002, as amended), to be implemented by the Animal Welfare Society.
In December 2011, the President of the Management Board of this Society submitted a request to the District Court in S. to resolve doubts as to the manner of implementing the judgment regarding the forfeiture of the dog, arguing that the provisions of the Animal Protection Act in the part relating to the manner of executing the forfeiture of the animal do not should apply to the enforcement of the forfeiture of a dog ordered pursuant to the Hunting Law Act, but only to the forfeiture provided for in the Animal Protection Act, requesting the designation of the tax office as the authority competent in this matter.
The Supreme Court wondered whether a greyhound or a crossbreed of this breed is subject to the Act on the Protection of Animal Rights since, due to its predispositions, it has traditionally been treated and bred as an „animal adapted and intended for hunting”, which also excludes „its use on farms”. agricultural as a guard. According to the Supreme Court, the Animal Protection Act regulates the treatment of all vertebrate animals, regardless of whether a specific animal is mentioned separately in another provision of this Act. Therefore, the fact that the Animal Protection Act does not mention greyhounds and their hybrids does not mean that they are not covered by this Act, since they are vertebrate animals, and the Act does not make the inclusion of an animal in this category of animals dependent on such or his other specific predispositions.
