what is the future of animals in divorce? If this problem is not a problem for animalists, it is not a problem for others.
the important role of the marriage system in allocating animals to one spouse. Considering the importance of
living in this situation, Judges sometimes refuse to intervene (e.g. Bordeaux court of appeal, sixth civil chamber, 27 January 2009). However, the court of cassation recalled that “respect for the right to family life requires the divorce judge to rule on applications for the distribution of husband and wife pets and their enjoyment; Therefore, the court of Appeal held that it had no right to decide on the application concerning dogs, although the enjoyment of dogs would be discussed in the process of liquidation and division, thus violating Article 8 of the European Convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms, Preamble to the European Convention for the protection of pets. The fate of
animals is very important, especially because there is a strong emotional connection between animals and humans. In particular, Law No. 2015-177 of February 16, 2015 incorporated articles 515-14 into the civil code. The article says: “animals are sentient creatures. According to the law on animal protection, animals should abide by the property system. ” The important role of
marriage system in allocating animals to one spouse
in principle, the fate of animals depends on the marriage system (it stipulates the economic interests of spouses during marriage and dissolution of marriage). However, is the excellence of animals higher than the sharing rule? Nothing is more uncertain than this, because case law (a series of court decisions) has no real guidelines, because if one judge thinks an animal is property, another judge may think it is a child. Therefore, there is great subjectivity. However, the judge applies the rules of the marriage system of spouse choice stipulated in the civil code. Receive suggestions from woopets by registering for a newsletter. I register your email address collected by woopets, allowing you to receive our news and business offers. Learn more. The first stage is a transitional stage; The second problem is the liquidation of marital property, which leads to the identity of the owner.
in divorce proceedings, the reconciliation judge must answer the question of whose house the animals live temporarily. Magistrates can enforce these rules strictly by determining the appendages of animals. If it is purchased in common currency under the common property system, the task of the judge is difficult because he must make a choice based on usually subjective factors. For example, he can rely on emotional ties to distinguish spouses, or more simply, make a decision according to the document holder of the family carnivore identification Association (e.g. Rouen court of appeal, family court, January 5, 2017). It should be noted that the judge held that alimony must be borne by the spouse of the animal (e.g. the court of appeal)L Paris, Chambre de la family, January 5, 2012).
the allocation of animals to the final owner will depend on the type of marriage system chosen by the spouse. There are two types: property division and joint property.
therefore, if both spouses choose property division, if one spouse purchases an animal before marriage, it can be regarded as his own property. The same applies to animals purchased by one spouse with his own money during the marriage. However, this must be proved, otherwise animals may fall into indivisible property.
under the common system, if an animal is purchased during marriage, the animal is regarded as common property, even if only one spouse purchases the animal.
Please also read: protecting hound
considering the important role of people living in sensitive
, everything seems very clear, but it is far from so in practice. The simplest is that both parties agree to divorce; Spouses should state their plans for animals in the agreement. In other divorce cases, due to the subjectivity and uncertainty of the family judge, the family judge does not have to strictly apply different marriage systems. Therefore, animals purchased by a spouse alone (and therefore their own property) can be distributed to the spouse of a non owner (e.g. civil Chamber of the Bordeaux court of appeal, 2 July 2014). In addition, some judges did not hesitate to grant visiting rights (e.g. chamber I of the Supreme Court of appeal on 8 October 1980) and alternative custody (e.g. civil Chamber II of the Supreme Court of appeal on 26 April 1990). He is considered a good man, but he is loved as a child. This has led to specific case law that could not have been imagined some time ago. However, the question is whether the intervention of legislators (in essence, the institution, government or parliament enacting general legal norms) is needed to complete the logic of articles 515-14 of the civil code?