theAnimal Rescue and Protection Association (ARPA) claims that the existence of an animal is not a sufficient reason, on its own, to lead to the loss of a home and asks that before applying a measure of this scope, the circumstances of each case are evaluated with objective criteria. The claim comes after the case of a young pregnant resident who has been evicted from the flat where she lived as a result of the conflict with the property for having a Pomeranian dog, recently published by diary. The president of ARPA, Laura Valeromakes it clear that the entity cannot take a position in favor of any of the parties. “We do not have the entire court file and, therefore, we will not take a position either against the property or in favor of the tenant. We trust that the Justice will resolve what is appropriate in this case,” he says.
“We don’t want having a dog to be an absolute right, but objective criteria”
The association, however, also considers it necessary to reflect on how these conflicts are addressed. Valero explains that they have spoken to the victim, who lived alone with the dog and the animal would not have caused coexistence problems, inconvenience to the neighbors or damage to the home. “A contractual clause should not function as an automatic expulsion button for the simple existence of an animal, if there are no other circumstances that justify it”, he points out. The case has gone through different judicial instances. The constitutional annulled a resolution of the superior and ordered that a new one be dictated, sufficiently motivated. In the first instance it had already been considered relevant that there had been no evidence of damage or neighborhood disturbance and the affected tenant was right. ARPA emphasizes that if there are other circumstances, they will have to be evaluated by the Justice.
“We trust that Justice will resolve what is appropriate in the case”
ARPA has proposed that the bill for the protection and welfare of animals incorporate criteria to deal with conflicts between owners, tenants and pets. “We are not asking that having an animal be an absolute right, nor that the property should accept any situation. We are asking for something simpler: objective criteria”, he defends Valero. The president defends that the regulations must serve to prevent conflicts before they end up in court. “If to decide whether a Pomeranian who has not caused any problems can live in a flat we have to go to the constitutionalmaybe the problem is not the dog.” He wants to prevent conflicts from ending up in court.
