At the end of December last year, the Bolesławiec City Council adopted a resolution “on the regulations for maintaining cleanliness and order in the city of Bolesławiec”. The legal act states, among other things: “It is prohibited to keep more than two adult dogs and two adult cats in residential premises in multi-family buildings”.
According to the Animal Assistance Association, this provision is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which states that ownership “may be restricted only by statute and only to the extent that it does not infringe the substance of the right of ownership”. “People cannot be told how many animals they may keep,” stresses an organization activist. The association intends to send a letter to the city authorities demanding that the provision be removed from the resolution.
Czy limit posiadania dwóch kotów i dwóch psów uważasz za słuszny?
“The purpose of this resolution is to reduce the nuisance caused to neighbours by people who keep many animals and cannot cope with them,” explains Agnieszka Gergont, spokesperson for the Bolesławiec City Office. “It concerns exclusively extreme situations in which residents of blocks of flats are helpless. If someone has more animals and this fact does not bother anyone, they will not face any consequences.”
As the municipal office spokesperson points out, the provision was included in the resolution because of numerous complaints submitted to officials. She adds that a similar limit has been in force in the urban municipality since 2005. There was one difference: people could keep more animals if they had the property owner’s consent.
It is worth noting that the City Council’s resolution has not yet entered into force. It may be challenged by the voivode. We will return to the matter.
Update
Below we present the letter from the Animal Assistance Association to the Bolesławiec City Council:
We call on the Bolesławiec City Council to remove from Resolution No. XXXII/269/2012 the provision that is inconsistent with the law in force—prohibiting the keeping of more than two adult dogs and two adult cats in residential premises in multi-family buildings.
On 28 December 2012, during a City Council session, a resolution on the regulations for maintaining cleanliness and order in the city of Bolesławiec was put to a vote and adopted. Chapter 6, § 15, paragraph 4 of the resolution contains the following provision: “It is prohibited to keep more than two cats and two adult dogs in residential premises in multi-family buildings”. The above provision violates both the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the Act of 13 September 1996 on maintaining cleanliness and order in municipalities.
Under the Act on maintaining cleanliness and order in municipalities [...] the City Council may establish “the obligations of persons keeping domestic animals” (Chapter 2, Article 4, point 6). Additional obligations are intended to “protect people from danger or nuisance and protect areas intended for common use from pollution” (ibid.). On this basis, municipal resolutions require, for example, cleaning up waste left by dogs or walking dogs on leashes, etc. However, introducing a limit on the number of animals kept in multi-family buildings is not the introduction of an additional obligation, but a restriction of the citizen’s right to keep animals, which, as a property right, is subject to special protection—under Article 64, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, ownership may be restricted only by statute and only to the extent that it does not infringe the substance of the right of ownership.
Moreover, the provision issued by the Bolesławiec City Councillors falls outside the scope of the authorizations contained in statutes (Article 94 of the Constitution), in this case the aforementioned Act on maintaining cleanliness and order in municipalities. We remind you that the Act authorizes the introduction of additional obligations only, not the restriction of rights.
We also point out that if employees of the Municipal Services Department of the Bolesławiec City Office, as part of cooperation with non-governmental organizations—in accordance with the Act on Municipal Self-Government—had submitted even a fragment of the above resolution to us for review while it was still a draft (we mean Chapter 6, concerning the obligations of persons keeping domestic animals), the violation of the law in force would not have occurred.
(information: ii)