Dr Carmen Arsene vs. IREC
October 19, 2016 - In - PART I - of our trilogy on the city of Ploiesti and their homeless dogs, we reported about Ploiesti's exemplary and all-encompassing stray dogs management program to be implemented in their city.
Local Council Decision HCL 502/2015 was the fruit of an almost 3-years-long effort, of numerous public debates as well as a public hearing held by the 'Human Rights Alliance of Romania' (ADOR) on the topic of identifying strategies for solving the situation of stray dogs. Any group, organization, institution and individual concerned in this issue could contribute to this process in order to determine and to adopt local public policies on this issue.
As a continuation of the public hearing in 2013, ADOR organized an advocacy campaign titled "No dogs on the streets - by ethics and reason", which brought to light the need to implement urgently a coherent, civilized, ethical, and efficient manner of dog population management, and which also formed a base for the conceptual draft of the Local Council Decision, and within three years, the original form was amended to reach to a form that includes all elements necessary for a successful dog management program. The draft for the adopted Draft Local Council Decision was drawn up by Dr. Carmen Arsene and journalist Eugen Cristescu, in close collaboration with the local councilors Sorin BOTEZ, and Ionut IONESCU.
With this, two years since the introduction of the 'Slaughter Law', Ploiesti had set an important precedent as the first and only city in the entire country to deal in a humane and effective manner with their surplus dog population by implementing a comprehensive C-N-R- program! Please click here if you wish to read the entire article.
And while the rest of the civilized world applauded Ploiesti's decision, there was one angry but insignificant voice from Romania that complained... As expected, IREC had protested Ploiesti's HCL 502/2015!
In - Part II - of our articles on Ploiesti, we have demonstrated - and provided voluminous evidence - how IREC seeked to destroy one of the most important initiatives introduced into Romania in recent years. We have evidenced that IREC has submitted inaccurate information to deliberately mislead Prefect Rodica Paraschiv whose remit of responsibility included Ploiesti (Prefect Rodica Paraschiv has since then been "replaced" which is a nicer term for "fired").
In this article, we have shown unequivocally that IREC’s own statements about legal issues exemplify their severely restricted legal knowledge of their own country's laws regulating the management of stray animals. With numerous examples we have demonstrated that whilst IREC speaks about dog population management, the reality is that they have a total absence of knowledge about this, as well as about canine ecology and canine ethology, all of which are essential to understand when creating a responsible and effective dog management program. We have shown that IREC's public statements in the absence of any informed knowledge, are both dangerously ill-conceived, and exemplify the limitations of a childish perspective, seeking only to satisfy personal desires.
And whilst IREC’s ignorance of any broader societal implications, their misinterpretation of international organisations' advice, Treaties and Conventions, their total absence of awareness of the implications of legitimised aggression on individuals and society, invites any shreds of integrity which they may have, to compel them to acknowledge their charade, and to simply return to their homes and bathrooms and cease to seek publicity... it has sufficed nevertheless to attack the Ploiesti City Council at Court, calling for the annulment of Ploiesti's exemplary Local Council Decision 502/2015, and which bring us to - Part III - The Battle for Justice - of our series of articles on Ploiesti.
IREC's argumentation against Ploiesti's Local Council Decision 502/2015 is basically the same as published (and refuted) in - Part II - an which you can read by clicking here.
- The Battle for Justice -
This court case constitutes - irrefutably - one of the most important juridical battles to be fought for the sake of Romania's homeless dogs as it would set an important precedent for all of Romania. Either way.
If IREC wins, NO Catch-neuter-release programs would be possible anywhere in Romania as long as OUG 155/2001 amended by Law' 258/2013 - Romania's Slaughter Law - regulates the management of national stray animal populations.
If IREC loses, the doors would be wide open to a humane management of stray animal populations across Romania by applying the only method that has proven successful wherever applied in the world, and which is a comprehensive C-N-R program (catch - neuter - vaccinate & register - release). Cities everywhere in Romania could then replicate Ploiesti's exemplary program and thus reduce their local stray animal populations humanely, cost-efficiently, and with long lasting effects.
Although Ploiesti's HCL 502/2015 is based on the understanding that Romania's legal framework does allow dogs to be returned to their places of origin as stipulated in article 10 of OUG 155/2001, as well as in article 17, paragraph 3, letter d) of GD 955/2004:
it is now up to the Court to confirm (or to refute) that this is indeed really the case. This court case is THAT important. And this is why Dr Carmen's 'National Federation for the Protection of Animals' - Federatia Nationala pentru Protectia Animalelor (FNPA) - has applied to the Court to be accepted as official intervenient.
A request that has been accepted by the Court during the first hearing from 23rd of September, 2016, and FNPA, represented by their lawyer Carmen Valean can now officially intervene, pleading in favor of a humane management of all of Romania's homeless animals, and this in addition to the lawyer that has been appointed by the Ploiesti City Council.
To serve at court, a number of European organizations from different countries, have, at the request of Dr Carmen, submitted written, official statements endorsing the importance of a humane neuter and return program as the ONLY proven effective method to reduce stray animal populations.
Update, January 15, 2017 - The legal battle is still ongoing. For updates on this important court case, please visit the website of Federatia Nationala pentru Protectia Animalelor, or get in touch with their Founding President, Dr Carmen Arsene, directly.
If IREC wins, NO Catch-neuter-release programs would be possible anywhere in Romania as long as OUG 155/2001 amended by Law' 258/2013 - Romania's Slaughter Law - regulates the management of national stray animal populations.
If IREC loses, the doors would be wide open to a humane management of stray animal populations across Romania by applying the only method that has proven successful wherever applied in the world, and which is a comprehensive C-N-R program (catch - neuter - vaccinate & register - release). Cities everywhere in Romania could then replicate Ploiesti's exemplary program and thus reduce their local stray animal populations humanely, cost-efficiently, and with long lasting effects.
Although Ploiesti's HCL 502/2015 is based on the understanding that Romania's legal framework does allow dogs to be returned to their places of origin as stipulated in article 10 of OUG 155/2001, as well as in article 17, paragraph 3, letter d) of GD 955/2004:
- OUG 155/2011 regulating the management program for stray dogs, as amended and supplemented by Law 258/2013 reads in art. 10: “adăposturile publice din cadrul serviciilor specializate pentru gestionarea câinilor fără stăpân, precum şi adăposturile asociaţiilor şi fundaţiilor pentru protecţia animalelor ţin registre speciale, vizate de medicul veterinar de liberă practică, în care trebuie notat, alături de alte informaţii, numărul de câini prinşi, revendicaţi, adoptaţi, returnaţi şi eutanasiaţi” (The public shelters within the specialized services for ownerless dogs’ management, also the shelters belonging to animal protection associations and foundations keep special registers, approved by the free practice veterinary doctor, in which must be noted, along with other information, the number of dogs that were caught, claimed, adopted, returned, and euthanized.)
- HG 955/2004 as amended and supplemented reads in art. 17 alin. (3) lit. d) “Serviciul public de ecarisaj va realiza următoarele”: “reîntoarcerea câinilor în zona de unde au fost prinşi, la cererea colectivităţii/grupului local, care îşi va asuma în scris răspunderea pentru ocrotirea câinilor trataţi” . (The public service of dogs’ rendering will realize the following: returning of the dogs in their original territory from where they were caught, at the request of the collectivity/local group which will assume, in writing, their responsibility for protecting the treated dogs.)
- GEO 155/2001 regulating the management program for stray dogs does not provide for euthanasia of stray dogs in the imperative, it does not provide for compulsory euthanasia of dogs anywhere in the text. Also, there is no legislative provision prohibiting the reterritorialization of the dogs.
it is now up to the Court to confirm (or to refute) that this is indeed really the case. This court case is THAT important. And this is why Dr Carmen's 'National Federation for the Protection of Animals' - Federatia Nationala pentru Protectia Animalelor (FNPA) - has applied to the Court to be accepted as official intervenient.
A request that has been accepted by the Court during the first hearing from 23rd of September, 2016, and FNPA, represented by their lawyer Carmen Valean can now officially intervene, pleading in favor of a humane management of all of Romania's homeless animals, and this in addition to the lawyer that has been appointed by the Ploiesti City Council.
To serve at court, a number of European organizations from different countries, have, at the request of Dr Carmen, submitted written, official statements endorsing the importance of a humane neuter and return program as the ONLY proven effective method to reduce stray animal populations.
Update, January 15, 2017 - The legal battle is still ongoing. For updates on this important court case, please visit the website of Federatia Nationala pentru Protectia Animalelor, or get in touch with their Founding President, Dr Carmen Arsene, directly.
U P D A T E
January 15, 2017 - This legal battle is still ongoing. For updates on this important court case, please visit the website of Federatia Nationala pentru Protectia Animalelor, or get in touch with their Founding President, Dr Carmen Arsene.