Disputes caused by game to agricultural crops and harvests may give rise to compensation through a scheme financed by hunters (see ici)… while the troubles resulting from domestic animals are the responsibility of the owners of these creatures… But sometimes the victims turn against the mayors, on the grounds that they have not made sufficient use of their police powers.
It is true that a town hall can seem more solvent than the retiree who shelters behind her Doberman or the breeder who, often, no longer has much insurance cover.
The fact remains that between the mayor and the animals, the law has forged a relationship of cow love (see ici), with limited interventions by mayors (see for example To be), unless there is an immediate risk of disturbing public security (see a interesting illustration on this side), with even a system of returning animals to their owners which is not without difficulty (see here)… and a special diet for certain canines.
But there is no diet for goats.
Hence the decision thus narrated in its charming press release by the TA of Rouen and which logically considers that the mayor in this case had done his best, or at least well enough not to see municipal responsibility engaged:
“The owner of a castle located in Caumont (Eure) has appealed to the administrative court of Rouen to order the municipality to compensate him for the damage he considers to have suffered due to the straying of goats which have damaged more of 150 trees and shrubs on his property.
After recalling that the general code of local authorities and the rural and maritime fishing code entrust the mayor, in his capacity as municipal police authority, with taking the necessary measures to put an end to the disturbances and damage caused by stray animals on municipal territory, the court noted that the mayor of Caumont, who had only been informed of the presence of goats on the applicant's property on February 28, 2020, had taken several measures aimed at putting an end to the damage .
The court thus noted that the mayor had contacted, on April 14, 2020, the departmental directorate of territories and the sea, which triggered the intervention the next day of the lieutenants of louveterie, which proved unsuccessful given the configuration of the premises. He noted that the mayor had also contacted the owner of the goats, on May 15, 2020, to order him to comply with his duties of care and supervision, and had put him on notice to recover his animals by order of 2 following July. Finally, the court noted that the mayor had adopted on July 7, 2020 a decree entrusting the Brigitte Bardot Foundation, with which contacts had been made as early as May 2020, with the task of capturing and taking into account care of the animals, operation completed on the 28th of the same month.
Taking into account these elements, and while the goats, which were not wandering on the public highway, did not constitute a danger requiring the adoption of emergency measures, the court considered that no culpable delay was attributable to the mayor de Caumont in the implementation of his police powers. The court also took into account the particular circumstances relating to the establishment of the state of health emergency during the period considered and to the steep configuration of the premises, on the edge of a cliff, making the search and capture operations particularly difficult. »
Source : Judgment No. 2202537 of November 14, 2024
I like this:
I like loading…
