LAW ASPECTS OF ANIMAL OWNERSHIP AND THE COMPARISON WITH ITALIAN REGULATION

Živali nimajo tistih lastnosti, ki so svoje le človeškim bitjem. Odsotnost prištevnosti, svobodnega odločanja in razuma jim onemogoča, da bi prevzemale upravičenja in dolžnosti. Manjkajoče lastnosti bi tako omogočale, da bi bile v pravu obravnavane kot subjekti. Že od samega obstoja človeštva, nam predstavljajo pomembno vlogo. Sprva kot sredstva za doseganje človekovih interesov, pa vse do čustvene navezanosti. Živali vplivajo tudi na razvoj pravnega sistema. Sprva so to področje urejali le z odločbami, ki so živali opredeljevale kot del premoženja gospodarja, sčasoma pa so v ospredje prešli modernejši cilji ohranitve biotske raznovrstnosti. Že stoletja se razvijajo zahtevnejše filozofske teorije o njihovem vplivu, psihologi in medicina razvijajo vedno več terapij zdravljenja bolezni s pomočjo le teh, ukvarjajo pa se z najbolj zahtevnimi pravnimi vprašanji, kot je na primer podelitev pravne subjektivitete v smislu živalskih pravic. Tako slovenski pravni red kot drugi veliki civilni zakoniki opredeljujejo žival kot stvar, nad katero lahko človek načeloma prosto razpolaga. Zaradi spoznanja, da živali ne moremo enačiti npr. z avtomobilom, jim pravni redi namenjajo posebno varstvo z nacionalnimi in mednarodnimi akti, tako da jim že priznavajo določene pravice. Sodobni zoofili in animalisti so mnenja, da je tudi živalim potrebno priznati t.i. živalske pravice, s katerim, bi se zavezovalo k pravilnemu ravnanju. Temelj tega prepričanja pa so spoznanja, da so nekatere živali, ki so ˝psihično višje razvite˝, sposobne pomnjenja ter čutenja trpljenja, zadovoljstva, želje, lastnosti, ki so bile do nedavnega lastne samo človeku. Regan se zavzema, da bi imeli ljudje moralne dolžnosti, ki preprečujejo izkoriščanje živali za prehrano, lov, poskuse, živalske vrtove in podobno. Ko stopimo skozi vrata na ulico lahko opazimo, koliko posameznikov ali družin, se je odločilo za nakup ali posvojitev hišnega ljubljenčka. Tudi v primeru divjih živali lahko opazimo močen porast slednjih. Ta porast pa v zadnjem času kmetom predstavljala velike nevšečnosti in stroške za zaščito svojih pridelkov in čred. Če smo včasih zelo redko videli srno med nabiranjem gob, je danes srečanje z divjadjo že skoraj vsakdanja stvar. Živali so že tako močno navajene na človeško prisotnost, da se brez strahu približujejo tudi stanovanjskim hišam. Zaradi velikega porasta živali je dolžnost zakonodajalca, da uredi to področje in tako vzpostavi sožitje med človekom in živaljo. Pogoste interakcije z njimi in verjetno tudi pomanjkljiva skrb s človeške strani, pripelje do povzročitve škode, za katero sama žival zaradi svoje narave, odsotnosti zavesti in pravne sposobnosti ne more biti nosilec odgovornosti. V diplomski nalogi je predstavljeno lastništvo živali. Doktrina se je v opredelitvi problema zavzela za izraz imetništvo, ker gre za širši pojem, saj zajema že samo detencijo. Poleg tega pa srečamo v razmerju do živali tudi primerjavo med lastnikom in skrbnikom. Razlika med njima je v tem, da je lastnik oseba, ki je opisana v centralni register psov, skrbnik, pa je oseba, ki dejansko za žival skrbi. . V primerjavi z italijanskim civilnim zakonikom. Slovenski pravni red deli živali na domače in divje. V obeh primerih se priznava pravni standard nevarne živali, ki bistveno vpliva na opredelitev odgovornosti. Glede na to, da se državi razlikujeta v sistemih, saj je Slovenija prevzela germanski model, Italija pa romanski, je namen diplomske naloge tudi v ugotoviti, ali se sistema na tem področju bistveno razlikujeta. Ker nam zakonodaja ne nudi/podaja konkretnih podatkov, sem pojme in dolžnosti imetnika predstavila s sodno prakso in tako podrobneje razložila vidike lastništva živali. Zaradi povečanega števila živali bodisi v urbanem okolju, kakor tudi v gozdovih, je imetnikom živali in vozil na voljo zavarovanje za take škodne primere.Animals do not have those characteristics which are common only for humans. The lack of sanity, freedom of choice and intellect are preventing them to be able to take entitlements and obligations. The missing features are making it impossible to be treated like subjects. From the begining of mankind they played an important role. Initally as food resorces, then as a working tool and all the way to emotional connections. The importance of animals its also affected the development of the legal system, starting with the decision to be seen as a owner assets, through the modern goal of preserving biodiversity. For centuries it developed complex philosophical theories about their impact, psychology and medicine are also recognising the influence of animals on diseases treatments, all the way to the most complex legal issues, such as whether to grant legal personality to animals in terms of animal rights. Thus the Slovenian legislation, as other major Civil Codes define an animal as a thing over which a man can freely dispose. Due to the realization that the animals can\u27t be treated such as a car, legal systems recognize them some rights as they offer them special protection with national and international acts. Modern zoofiles and Animalists have the opinion that it is necessary to recognize them \u27Animal Rights\u27, which would obligate human to have a proper doing. The foundation of this belief is based on the opinion that some animals are psychically higher developed beings, capable of memorizing and feeling pain, pleasure, desire, which until recently were only owned by man. Regan advocates that people must have moral obligations to prevent the exploitation of animals for food, hunting, eperiments, zoos. As we step outdoor on the street we can see how many individuals and families purchased or adopted a pet. Even in the case of wild animals we can see a strong increase of numbers , so that its represented a significant inconvenience and expense for farmers to protect their crops and herds. If in the past we rarely saw a deer while we were collecting mushrooms, is nowaday an encounter with a wild animal an everyday thing. Animals are so much accustomed to the human presence, that they even approach our homes without any fear. Because of such a large increase of animals is the duty of the legislature to regulate this area in order to establish harmony between man and animals. It is because of such frequent interactions with them, and probably also the lack of diligence from us, that it comes to the civil liability for animals, which because of their nature, lack of awareness and legal capacity can\u27t be responsable. In the thesis it\u27s presented the ownership of animals. The doctrine choosed to use the wider meaning of ownership, that includes the detention . In addition, we can also find the comparison between animal owners and administrators. The difference between them lies in the fact that the owner is registered in a central register of dogs, an administrator by the other hand is the person who actually takes care of the animal. In comparison with the Italian Civil Code slovenian legal order divides the animals in two groups, such as domestic animals and wild animals. In both cases its recognized the legal standard of dangerous animals, which significantly affects the definition of the liability. Due to the fact that they differ in the systems, since Slovenia took the Germanic model, and Italy Roman, the purpose of the thesis also determines whether the system in this area vary greatly. Since the law does not give us specific information, I presented the concepts and duties of the holder in conjunction with the case law and I also took a further explanation of other aspects of animal ownership. Due to the increased number of animals, whether in the urban environment, or in forests, it is available for owners of animals and cars an insurance for this kind of event