Offences against animals in Italy: what changed in 2025
Italian law on offences against animals was substantially strengthened by a recent statute. Penalties were raised; imprisonment and a fine now apply together rather than as alternatives, which removes the possibility of closing such cases by payment; aggravating circumstances were widened; and offences against animals were added to the list of matters that can make a company answerable in its own right.
This reaches considerably more people than owners of pets. Breeders, kennels, transporters, farms, veterinary practices, transport operators and anyone running an activity that involves animals can now face proceedings against the business as well as against an individual, judged on how the activity was organised rather than on a particular incident. For an owner, the practical change is that a complaint from a neighbour, a vet or an inspector is far less likely to be settled quietly than it would have been before.
Avv. Massimo Romano — Ordine degli Avvocati di Napoli n. 14553, patrocinante in Cassazione dal 23/10/2015 — Roma, Via Avicenna 97, 00146 · Milano, Via Giuseppe Pecchio 3, 20129 · Napoli, Corso Umberto I 237, 80138 — +39 335 669 3954
In brief
- The conduct covered runs from killing an animal to mistreatment, to events and spectacles that cause suffering, to unauthorised fighting, with abandonment treated separately as a lesser offence.
- Making imprisonment and fine cumulative rather than alternative is the least visible change and the one that matters most, because it closes the route by which these files were previously resolved.
- Mistreatment covers injury inflicted out of cruelty or without necessity, and also the subjection of an animal to strain or to conditions incompatible with its nature, which is the limb that reaches ordinary households.
- Two words do the limiting work: necessity excludes what veterinary or lawful activity requires, and the threshold of unbearable strain requires considerably more than discomfort.
- Where the allegation rests on how an animal was kept rather than on an act, veterinary evidence about the animal's actual condition is what decides the case, which is why an independent examination matters early.
- Abandonment of a domestic animal, or of one accustomed to captivity, carries a consequence owners do not anticipate where the abandonment happens in circumstances involving a vehicle.
- Where a business is involved, exposure is assessed against its organisation, so the documents that describe how the activity was run become more important than any account of the incident itself.
- Records of feeding, housing, veterinary care, transport and instructions to staff are the material that answers a condition-based allegation, and they are easiest to assemble before anyone is interviewed.
The offences
| Conduct | Position | Provision |
|---|---|---|
| Killing an animal | Criminal offence, penalties raised in 2025 | Art. 544-bis Criminal Code |
| Mistreatment | Imprisonment and fine, cumulative since 2025 | Art. 544-ter |
| Spectacles or events causing suffering | Criminal offence | Art. 544-quater |
| Unauthorised fighting | Criminal offence, aggravated forms | Art. 544-quinquies |
| Aggravating circumstances | Extended in 2025 | Art. 544-septies |
| Abandonment | Separate offence, with driving consequences | Art. 727 |
| Liability of the entity | Where a business is involved | Legislative Decree 231/2001 |
The change that matters most is the least visible. Making imprisonment and fine cumulative rather than alternative removes the possibility of resolving these cases by payment, and it moves them out of the category where they were routinely settled quietly.
Who this reaches
Not only owners. Breeders, kennels, transporters, farms, veterinary practices and anyone running an activity involving animals now face the possibility of proceedings against the business itself, judged on its organisation rather than on the conduct of an individual.
For a company that is a different kind of exposure, and it is the reason to look at the organisational model rather than only at the incident. The framework is in corporate criminal liability in Italy.
What counts as mistreatment
The offence covers causing injury out of cruelty or without necessity, and subjecting an animal to unbearable strain or to conduct or conditions incompatible with its nature. The second limb is the one that reaches ordinary situations: an animal kept permanently chained, in unsuitable space, without shelter or care.
Two words limit it. Necessity excludes conduct required by veterinary or lawful activity, and unbearable requires more than discomfort. Where the case rests on conditions rather than on an act, veterinary evidence about the actual state of the animal is what decides it.
Abandonment
Abandoning a domestic animal or one that has become accustomed to captivity is a separate minor offence, and it carries a consequence that people do not expect: where the abandonment occurred on a road or created a hazard, driving consequences can follow alongside the criminal penalty.
It is also the offence most likely to be reported by a third party, and the reports arrive with photographs and dates, which makes the account given at the outset difficult to change later.
The statute covers conduct of several different kinds, and each produces a different argument. This table sets the conduct beside the treatment it receives and the point on which the file usually turns.
| Conduct | How the law treats it | What the case usually turns on |
|---|---|---|
| Killing an animal | Criminal offence, with penalties raised by the reform | Whether death was caused by the accused and whether any lawful necessity applied |
| Mistreatment | Criminal offence, with imprisonment and fine applying together | Whether cruelty or absence of necessity can be shown on the evidence |
| Spectacles or events causing suffering | Criminal offence in its own right | Who organised the event and what was foreseeable from its format |
| Unauthorised fighting | Criminal offence, with aggravated forms | Organisation, premises and the role attributed to each participant |
| Abandonment | Lesser offence, treated separately | Whether the animal was abandoned or had escaped or been rehomed |
| Conduct of a business | The entity may be proceeded against alongside individuals | How the activity was organised and supervised, rather than the incident |
Situations that arise for visitors and residents
- Transporting animals in conditions that breach the rules, particularly across a border.
- Leaving a dog in a vehicle in summer, which is regularly reported and prosecuted.
- Taking on an animal while resident and abandoning it on departure.
- Hunting and fishing outside the permitted conditions, which engage their own separate rules.
- Wildlife products bought as souvenirs, dealt with in customs at Italian borders.
Frequently asked questions
What changed in 2025?
Penalties were raised, imprisonment and fine became cumulative rather than alternative, aggravating circumstances were extended, and companies can now be liable in their own right.
Is keeping a dog chained mistreatment?
It can be. The offence covers conditions incompatible with the animal's nature, and cases resting on conditions are decided by veterinary evidence about its actual state.
Is abandonment a crime?
Yes, it is a separate minor offence, and where it occurred on a road or created a hazard, driving consequences can follow as well.
Can my business be prosecuted?
Yes. Offences against animals were added to the list triggering liability of the entity, judged on its organisation rather than on individual conduct.
If a report has been made
Veterinary evidence about the animal's actual condition is what these cases turn on, and it is best obtained early. First contact is free and covered by professional privilege.
Who arrives here after a report about an animal
A neighbour filed a complaint about a dog left on a balcony. A veterinarian wrote to the police after treating an injured cat. A video of a horse, a bird or a farm animal was posted online and a tourist, a rider or a worker was named in the comments. A restaurant or a shop was visited by inspectors who found animals kept in conditions they judged unsuitable. These are the usual ways a person learns that the matter has become criminal.
Some readers are visitors. A traveller left a pet in a parked car while visiting a monument, or took an animal on a trip and abandoned it when plans changed. Others are residents who feed strays, keep animals at a country property, breed dogs or keep horses at a stable, and have been visited by officers after a complaint. A further group are families of employees: a stable hand, a farm worker or a shop assistant who is named as responsible for animals owned by somebody else.
All of them have heard that Italian law on animals changed recently. It did. Penalties were raised, the fine and the prison term became cumulative where they had been alternatives, and an owner who is a company can now be liable in its own right. The practical consequence is that matters previously settled by paying a sum now continue as criminal files. This page describes what that means in the opening days.
Mistreatment allegations come in two shapes that are argued quite differently: one based on something that was done, the other on the way an animal was kept. The table separates them.
| Element | Allegation based on an act | Allegation based on conditions |
|---|---|---|
| What the prosecution must show | That the accused did a specific thing to the animal | That conditions were incompatible with the animal's nature over time |
| The evidence that decides it | Witnesses, recordings and injuries consistent with the alleged act | The animal's actual condition and the history of its housing and care |
| Role of the veterinary report | Links an injury to a mechanism | Establishes whether the condition amounts to unbearable strain |
| Where necessity is argued | That the handling was required by treatment or lawful activity | That the arrangement was the one the animal's situation permitted |
| What the keeper can produce | An account of the occasion, supported by witnesses present | Continuous records of feeding, shelter, veterinary visits and supervision |
Choices when officers, a vet or an inspector are at the door
The opening minutes decide what the record says. Several decisions arise, each with a price.
- Whether to let officers see the animals and the premises. Refusing entry can lead to a formal inspection with a warrant and to a more intrusive visit. Allowing it, with a request that the inspection be written down and your presence noted, lets you see what is photographed.
- Whether to hand over the animal. Where officers say an animal is suffering, they may remove it. Resisting looks like obstruction. Ask where the animal is taken, who holds it and how to reach the person responsible, and ask for a written record of the removal.
- Whether to explain. A kind, clear explanation of why an animal was in a given condition feels natural. It is also a statement about responsibility, care and knowledge. If the animal belongs to a business, the person who speaks may be speaking for the company.
Ask for a veterinary record to be made at the moment of removal, since the condition of the animal on that day is evidence. If a vet is present, ask for the findings in writing. If you disagree with them, say so politely and ask that your disagreement be noted. Then call the lawyer before giving a longer account.
The cost of a rushed answer is that the same statement can describe both the facts and the intent, and intent is what a criminal court considers.
Records that show how an animal was kept
Most animal cases turn on the condition of the animal and on who was responsible for it. Gather what shows both.
- Veterinary records: vaccinations, treatments, microchip registration, invoices, prescriptions and any past notes on health or behaviour.
- Photographs and videos of the animal and its surroundings, with dates, taken before the report if possible.
- Ownership documents: purchase papers, registration, adoption contracts, breeder paperwork and any record that shows who the legal keeper is.
- Proof of the arrangements you made: boarding invoices, messages with a sitter, receipts for food and equipment, the schedule of care.
- For a business, licences, inspection records, staff rosters and training records, together with the names of the people who were on duty.
- Every paper from the police, the vet or the inspectors, photographed in full, including the record of removal if the animal was taken.
- The names and contact details of people who saw the animal regularly: neighbours, groomers, trainers and other riders or keepers.
- Any message or post in which the animal is discussed, saved exactly as it appears and not deleted.
- Photographs of the enclosure, cage, stable or room as it normally looks, with a note of cleaning and feeding times.
- Any complaint, letter or message from the person who reported the matter, kept as received.
The lawyer will decide which of these to use. Keep all of them.
What changes at home, at work and with the animal itself
The immediate consequence is often the loss of the animal. A seized dog, cat or horse is placed in a shelter or a facility chosen by the authorities, and returning it depends on the outcome of the file or on an application made in good time. Family members, especially children, are affected immediately. If the animal is a working animal, a guide or assistance animal, or the basis of a small business, the damage is financial too.
The costs of keeping a seized animal can fall on the keeper, and that is among the reasons to speak to a lawyer early. A business owner may be unable to trade if licences are suspended or premises sealed pending inspection. A stable, a kennel, a farm shop or a restaurant with live animals can lose customers within days of a report becoming public.
A visitor or a resident with a residence permit tied to work or study should expect that a criminal file may be looked at when the permit is renewed. A person who works with animals, or with children and animals together, may be asked by the employer to step back. Online, a video that is shared widely is almost impossible to retract, and comments naming a person can create a further problem, including for those who comment. The best protection against all of this is a calm, documented and lawyer-led response.
Questions that matter in an animal case
These are the questions to put to the lawyer, written for the person who has not faced such a charge before.
- Which offence is being considered on these facts: killing, mistreatment, abandonment or something else, and what separates them?
- Was the animal injured by an act or by a failure to act, and does that distinction matter here?
- Can the animal be returned to me, and what do I have to do and pay to ask?
- What is my position if the animal is owned by a company or by somebody else and I only looked after it?
- If I run a business, what is the exposure of the business itself, and should it have its own lawyer?
- Which of my statements to the vet or the inspectors can be used, and how do I correct anything wrong?
- What role does an expert opinion play, and can I commission an expert of my own?
- If a video exists, what should I do about copies and about requests from the press?
- If the animal is returned, what conditions will be attached, and who checks them?
- Does the answer change if the animal was old or ill when the incident took place?
Write down the answers. Animal cases often move slowly and then suddenly, and a clear note is useful.
Condition-based cases are answered with paperwork rather than argument. This table lists the records worth securing and what each of them establishes.
| Record | Who holds it | What it shows |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary file for the animal | The veterinary practice that treated it | A history of examinations, treatment and advice given to the keeper |
| Microchip and registry entry | The animal registry held by the health authority | Who the keeper is and since when, which attribution often depends on |
| Invoices for food, bedding and medication | The keeper, and the suppliers | That provision was continuous rather than occasional |
| Dated photographs and video of the housing | The keeper or family members | The state of shelter and space before any inspection took place |
| Transport and housing logs | The business running the activity | How animals were moved, held and checked, and by whom |
| Written instructions to staff | The business running the activity | How the activity was organised, which is what the entity is judged on |
Mistakes that turn an animal complaint into a worse case
Each of the following has appeared repeatedly in these files.
- Do not move or dispose of the animal after a report. Sending it to a friend or abandoning it elsewhere looks like concealment and can create a fresh offence.
- Do not treat an injured animal yourself in a hurry. A delay in veterinary care is a feature of many files; get a vet, and keep the invoice.
- Do not confront the person who reported you. Neighbour disputes become more serious when a complainant says they were threatened.
- Do not post a defence online. The video, the caption and the comments are all evidence.
- Do not clean or alter the place before it is inspected. Changing conditions in the space looks like hiding them.
- Do not let an employee take the blame informally. If a business is responsible, the position of the company and of the individual are different and should be handled separately.
- Do not sign a record of removal you have not read. It may describe the condition of the animal in terms you dispute.
- Do not rely on a reassuring remark. A friendly officer saying that nothing will come of it is not a decision. Wait for a written act.
- Do not collect statements from neighbours in a rush. Letters gathered in haste read as pressure and can be tested. Let the lawyer decide who is approached and how.
When the animal, the owner or the paperwork come from another country
Animal cases that cross a border share a particular difficulty: ownership. A dog bought abroad, an animal registered in another national database and a horse that travels with a rider from another country all carry documents that Italian offices do not always recognise at a glance. Passports for pets, microchip certificates and vaccination records need translation, and the translation should keep names, dates and product details exactly. Request them from the foreign vet early, because a clinic abroad may take time to send a certified copy.
If the animal is taken into care in Italy while the owner is abroad, practical questions come immediately: who pays the costs, who can visit and how a decision about the animal's future is communicated. Name a person in Italy who can receive messages and attend the facility, and tell the lawyer who it is.
Where the incident took place during a trip, the owner may have returned home, and notices may follow by post. Make sure the lawyer has an address that works and an email that is read. Time zones affect calls with the facility or the vet, and a weekend gap can matter when an animal's condition is changing. Consulates can advise on documents and on where to find interpreters, but they do not intervene in an animal case or take custody of the animal.
How the firm takes an animal case, step by step
Send what you have in the opening message: the papers from the police or inspectors, photographs of the animal and the place, and a short note of who is responsible for it. The email address is avvmassimoromano@gmail.com, and the telephone number on this page is also on WhatsApp.
The opening call is practical. The lawyer asks where the animal is now, who has custody, what the record of removal says and what has been said to officers. The call then covers what needs doing that day, such as asking for a veterinary report, preserving records, and arranging a person to visit the animal. The lawyer also asks about the business or household setting, because the question of who is responsible shapes everything else.
Conversations are in English, and Italian documents are explained in plain terms. The firm has offices in Rome, Milan and Naples, and the lawyer can attend an inspection or a hearing in a city where you do not live. Where a document must be obtained from another country, a correspondent there is asked to collect it. The engagement is confirmed in writing before work starts, with the scope and the way of reporting back set out, so that you are not left guessing about what is being done.
Words used on animal files and inspection records
The terms below come from the page and from Italian files on the same subject. They appear in translations and on Italian paper.
- Mistreatment — causing an animal suffering or injury without a justification the law accepts.
- Killing — causing an animal's death without necessity. Methods that prolong suffering are treated more seriously.
- Abandonment — leaving an animal in conditions where it cannot be cared for, including leaving it behind when you travel.
- Cumulative penalties — a regime in which imprisonment and a fine are applied together, not as alternatives.
- Aggravating circumstances — facts that raise the penalty, such as cruelty, the presence of children or the involvement of several animals.
- Liability of the entity — the ability of a company to be held responsible in its own right for an offence committed for its benefit.
- Unauthorised fighting — organising or taking part in contests between animals without permission.
- Record of removal — the written account of an animal being taken, which describes its condition and who took it.
If your paper has another word, send it to the lawyer and ask for a plain explanation. Interpreters sometimes render the same Italian word in different ways in different documents, so ask for the original wording to be kept beside the translation. Veterinary reports in particular use clinical terms that sound alarming outside their context, so ask the vet or the lawyer to explain each of them in plain words.
About the lawyer
A relative detained abroad changes the shape of a family's day: nobody knows who to call first, and the information that does arrive is fragmentary. Avv. Massimo Romano works on Italian criminal matters, European arrest warrants and the position of Italians arrested outside Italy, and he is admitted to plead before the Court of Cassation. The office works from Rome, Milan and Naples, which matters when papers have to be filed in one city while the family lives in another. Contact usually begins with a telephone call or a WhatsApp message describing, in plain terms, what happened. He reads whatever paperwork exists before giving an opinion; if something is missing, he says what to ask for and who to ask. After that first conversation the family receives a written account of the position and the steps that follow. Discussions with relatives are held in the language they use at home.
Telephone the office or send a WhatsApp message. Before you call, gather the document you received, the name of the authority written on it, and the file reference if one appears.
Avv. Massimo Romano — criminal defence lawyer, admitted to the Italian Court of Cassation
Iscritto all'Ordine degli Avvocati di Napoli n. 14553 | Patrocinante in Cassazione dal 23/10/2015
Roma, Via Avicenna 97, 00146 · Milano, Via Giuseppe Pecchio 3, 20129 · Napoli, Corso Umberto I 237, 80138
+39 335 669 3954 · WhatsApp