Animals protected by law only when the evil is unnecessary

In the modern era, the liberal representation of society is consistent with a regulatory policy that allows an alliance between law and current moral code. In the EU, ethics is an essential component of the idea of the same European citizenship. Moral concerns should start with all beings who have self-interests. This remark deals with the one that all living entities can have interests to be protected, even by the legal system. The Western legal system already accommodates a number of animal interests within the criminal anti-cruelty laws and civil trust laws. But an analysis of the way these laws provide legal rights to animals is required, overall taking into consideration the need of balancing the interests of animals against human interests. Throughout history, the provisions of the law reflected the social view of animals. In Europe, animal welfare is acknowledged as a Community value that is enshrined in the Protocol (No 33) on protection and welfare of animals, annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community. Also national laws of the Member States increasingly acknowledge the interests of animals besides the benefits to humans. In particular, this reflects the acceptance of the animal\u2019s interest in being free from pain and suffering and from killing without just cause, even if the critical prohibitions on beating and killing animals is often reduced with \u201cunnecessarily\u201d and \u201cneedlessly\u201d. However, these last terms are difficult to define. Additionally, the way of a clear balancing of interests may be not that easy in each time; sometimes the human interests overcome that of the animals\u2018, and pain and suffering might lawfully occur. Besides, can the legal system provide a useful remedy with the resources available? Something can vary also if the animals are part of a personal property or not. In consequence, animals have modest levels of legal rights in our system. They already exist as individuals within it, but not in a systematic way. Again, in the future this line could be redrawn. The present anti-cruelty laws are but a first step. The legislatures will have to adopt new provisions. A reflection on these themes and the new perspectives that can be opened is proposed, togheter with an analysis of the partial inconsistency between the civil code (animals as \u201clegal things\u201d) and the penal code (animals as \u201csentient beings\u201d) as far as the legal status of animals and its consequences on