The problem of animals in condominiums has always been a hot issue. From the statistical data collected in 2023 it appears that out of a population of approximately 59 million inhabitants (presumed Istat data as of 1 January 2024) the number of dogs and cats is approximately 19 million, of which approximately half are represented by felines.
In short, an army that lives with us and that, inevitably, frequents the spaces and common areas of our condominiums.
It is the owners’ responsibility to respect the rules to guarantee correct animal/human coexistence and prevent the rights of our friends from negatively interfering with those of the condominiums.
The problem, then, presents itself in a more complex form when – as in the case in question – in the condominium there is one or more “cat maids” who take care of homeless cats.
The resolution that decides to move the food for the cats outside the boundaries of the condominium is valid. Fact and decision
A condominium owner challenged a meeting resolution complaining about the violation dell’art. 66 disp. to. ccon the subject of convening the meeting, and law no. 281/1991 (“framework law on pet animals and prevention of strays”) which, at a national level, also regulates so-called “cat colonies”.
The condominium remained in default, while another participant explained voluntary intervention, requesting the rejection of the plaintiff’s request, as the poor hygienic-sanitary conditions affecting the condominium areas they were determined by a notable number of stray cats who frequented the common areas, attracted by the food stored there by some condominium owners.
Il Court of Leccecon sentence no. 314 filed on January 30, 2024rejected the application as unfounded.
No violation was ascertained regarding the defect in convening the meeting as the plaintiff had been present at the meeting through its delegate, exhibiting, through the same, documentation concerning the reporting of the so-called feline colony, which appeared to be managed by the plaintiff.
Likewise the Court did not find any violation of law no. 281/1991 since the fact complained of did not exist. In fact, on the basis of testimonial evidence made during the preliminary investigation phase, it emerged that the food made available to the cats in the common areas was attractive not only the felines, but also the pigeons and other animals, which filled the entire complex with excrement as they were free to move without control.
As is clear from the resolution, the assembly had not decided to suppress the cat colonybut to move the place of administration of food for stray cats outside the condominium fence with the sole purpose of preserving the common areas from the inevitable and harmful consequences.
On this point the Court justified its decision by stating that in this case “It’s not one decides which has prescribed the removal or suppression of the cat colony, as attached by the plaintiff and certainly prohibited by sector legislation, but rather of protection and reconciliation of the legitimate needs of cleanliness and hygiene – among other things expressly provided for by the municipal regulation in force – with those for the care of stray cats that continue to frequent the places for which it is judged and to constitute their habitat there, without however soiling the common spaces where, mainly, people live, that is, the condominium owners, their families and their guests”.
Legal implications on the management of cat colonies in condominiums
The ruling of the Court of Lecce places us face to face with two questions.
At first ha purely condominium character and is determined by the influence that theart. 1102 c.c. could have on situations similar to the one under examination. The norm, in fact, directly borrowed from the institution of communion, concerns the right of communists to use the res collective as long as it respects certain limits: the no alteration of the destination of the goods and the guarantee that the other participants can make equal use of this according to their own rights.
But why recall the art. 1102 cc, given that this would seem to be extraneous to the concrete case?
From the context of the motivation it emerges that the actress, in relation to whom it is highlighted that she lived within the complex, together with other subjects (also defined by judgmental “gattari”), had identified sites within the common areas where food could be left for the numerous stray cats. In factTherefore, condominium parts were used for this purpose ed in completely unhygienic wayswith the consequences that have been highlighted.
When the Court declared the legitimacy of the resolutionemphasized that with it the condominiums had limited themselves to regulating the methods of administering food to the felines. A decision which, implicitly, could fall within the scope of art. 1102 cc, even if as a result of an extensive interpretation with respect to its content, since a right configured in this way does not strictly fall within the dictates of the law itself.
As for the alleged violation of the rules for the protection of affectionate animals and, in this case, of the “cat colonies”, it must be said that the regional and municipal regulations are responsible for issuing their own provisions, including regulatory ones, in compliance with the guidelines imposed by state law, but always with the aim of allowing and to facilitate the protection and well-being of these groups.
Having said this, the sentence is also free from criticism in this respect, since the purpose of the resolution and, above all, the textual value of the same, had demonstrated that there had not been no determination aimed at dispersing or suppressing the feline communitybut only to regulate in the best and, in particular, most hygienic way, their feeding which, as appears from the decision itself, took place at the hands of several people and not just the plaintiff.
The judgeTherefore, he balanced two needs: cleanliness and health for condominiumson the one hand, and care and sustenance of the cats, on the other, in the event that the animals remained free to wander around the places, without however consuming their meals in the common areas.
