“Criminal defense of feline colonies: when caregivers become targets of conflicts”

By Maria Girona Ayala. Lawyer. President of the Animal Law Section of the Colegio de la Abogacía de Madrid; President of the Association for the Defense of Victims of Injustices (APADEVI) and creator of the Sanctuary-Refuge for mistreated horses SANTUARIO (APADEVI).

The volunteers who care for and manage cat colonies are the cornerstone of this work, dedicating their time and personal resources with admirable altruism and commitment. These exemplary individuals assume a responsibility that, by law, falls to public authorities, providing the protection and care that the animals deserve and need through their efforts.

However, despite their crucial work, they often feel unprotected by the law. Moreover, many of them feel persecuted by the authorities. Instead of fulfilling their obligations regarding animals, these authorities often focus on penalizing those who, with complete altruism, dedicate their time and resources to caring for animals that, by law, should be protected, cared for, and managed by local councils and other public administrations.

Conflicts arising from the management of urban cat colonies are becoming increasingly prevalent in legal proceedings. These conflicts often originate in neighborhood tensions that sometimes escalate into acts that could lead to criminal charges, such as assault, threats, or coercion.

The Key Precedent of the Elche Ruling

A recent ruling marks a turning point in the defense of feral cat colonies and other urban animals, and serves as a key example for examining these cases, as well as the importance of the private prosecution's role in proceedings of this nature. The ruling, from Juzgado de Instrucción Court No. 5 of Elche, in its judgment of July 25, 2025, convicted a person of two minor offenses: one of coercion for throwing away the cat feeders and another of assault for pushing the person who was feeding them. Often, people bothered by cats throw away the feeders or waterers to prevent the cats from being fed.

It is worth noting that the ruling makes no distinction between registered and unregistered colonies. Therefore, if someone were feeding unregistered animals in the street, and the feeders were removed to prevent them from doing so, it would constitute the same situation as if the colony were registered, as the ruling states—that is, the crime of coercion. However, the provisions of municipal ordinances or the corresponding regional law regarding this matter are a separate issue. If these regulations prohibit feeding animals in certain locations, the appropriate course of action to stop the practice would be to initiate administrative sanction proceedings, but in no case would it involve the de facto removal of feeders, waterers, or shelters.

Following this legal precedent, throwing away cat food and water bowls constitutes the crime of coercion. In a way, this ruling equates these actions to the crime of squatting (usurpation of a dwelling), where years ago the courts already considered that changing the locks or cutting off utilities constituted coercion. The same applies now if someone, with the intention of preventing cats from being fed or disturbing the neighbors, throws away their food bowls or even their shelters.

Regarding the issue of disciplinary proceedings against individuals who feed animals, it's important to note that when a disciplinary proceeding is initiated for feeding animals, the crucial point is whether the competent authority is actually feeding them. If it isn't, the fine imposed on the feeder could be nullified, and the relevant authority could incur administrative liability. Furthermore, the responsible official could even face criminal charges for abandonment and mistreatment (if any animal has suffered harm to its health as a result of the lack of food or care from the authority), as stipulated in Article 78 of Law 7/1985, of April 2, Regulating the Foundations of Local Government.

Regarding the prohibitions on feeding stray or abandoned animals, which are the responsibility of the municipalities, it is important to note that if the municipality itself is not providing care and feeding for these animals, any prohibition on feeding them would be null and void, since due obedience is limited by the illegality of the order received, and citizens are not obligated to comply with an order that constitutes a crime of animal abuse.

The Essential Need for Private Prosecution

However, what at first glance seems logical underscores the importance of private prosecution. The Public Prosecutor's Office does not usually bring charges in these cases, requesting dismissal and archiving during the preliminary investigation. Therefore, without private prosecution, the case would not go to trial due to the adversarial principle of our criminal procedure system. In other cases, also quite frequently, if the matter does go to trial, the Public Prosecutor usually requests the acquittal of the accused.

Thus, the role of the private prosecution is fundamental to sustaining the criminal action, as happened in the case of the aforementioned sentence, without which the facts could not be subject to conviction. Furthermore, without a private prosecution during the investigative phase, given the public prosecutor's role in most cases involving animals, the necessary investigative steps to build a case or present the evidence required for trial could not be carried out.

A Legal Phenomenon in its Context

A key factor in understanding this legal process is the increased social awareness surrounding animal welfare. Today's society actively demands respect for and protection of community animals, which drives both the work of volunteers and the need for an appropriate legal response to conflicts.

Therefore, criminal proceedings related to feline colonies cannot be understood outside of their context, which includes: the increase in social sensitivity regarding animal welfare, conflicts of coexistence in community spaces, the divergences between local administrations, entities and individuals and the absence of uniform criteria in municipal management.

This reality demands that legal professionals have a technical understanding of the phenomenon and its procedural implications. Therefore, training for all professionals and knowledge of judicial precedents, such as the one discussed in this article, are essential to contribute to a better defense of animals and those who care for them.