Judicial Reponse to Animal Cruelty: An Empirical Analysis of Czech Practice and Comparative Perspectives
Abstract
This article presents a comprehensive analysis of sentencing patterns in Czech criminal courts regarding animal cruelty, situating these findings within a broader comparative framework. The study first defines the statutory elements of animal-related offences and the corresponding sanctions across selected European jurisdictions. This theoretical foundation is supported by an empirical study based on a content analysis of over 300 district court judgments issued between 2015 and 2025. Using quantitative legal analysis, the author examines sanctioning mechanisms, focusing specifically on legal qualification, the types of penalties, and their severity. The research investigates the specific sanctions and sentence lengths applied within this legislative framework while identifying the key aggravating and mitigating factors considered in judicial practice. The study concentrates on the judicial response to acts that have reached the threshold of criminal liability. The findings reveal substantive limitations in the Czech sentencing regime, in that significant legislative increases in statutory sentencing ranges have not resulted in a tangible increase in sentence severity in practice; these results provide a robust basis for discussion in light of international standards and effective animal welfare mechanisms.
Keywords:
animal cruelty, threshold of criminalisation, empirical analysis of case law, Czech criminal law, comparative contextReferences
European Commission. Explanatory Memorandum to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Welfare of Dogs and Cats and Their Traceability. COM(2023) 769 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0769.
FEDIAF European Pet Food. “FEDIAF: Facts & Figures, 2025.” Accessed February 2, 2026. https://europeanpetfood.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/FEDIAF-Facts-Figures-2025.pdf.
Höpfel, Frank, Eckart Ratz, and Hagen Nordmeyer, eds. Wiener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch. 2nd ed. Wien: Manz, 2024.
Kořínek, Štěpán. “Posílení ochrany zvířat v reflexi trestného činu ‘chov zvířat v nevhodných podmínkách’.” Trestněprávní revue, no. 2 (2022): 85–91.
Körner, Bianca, Sibel Konyo, and Christine Künzli. Schweizer Tierschutzstrafpraxis 2021: Jahresanalyse des landesweiten Vollzugs des Tierschutzstrafrechts [Swiss Animal Welfare Criminal Practice 2021: Annual Analysis of the Nationwide Enforcement of Animal Welfare Criminal Law]. Zurich: TIR, 2022. https://www.tierimrecht.org/documents/4499/Analyse_Schweizer_Tierschutzstrafpraxis_2021_Gutachten.pdf.
Legge, Debbie. “Key Animal Law Across Europe.” In Routledge Handbook of Animal Welfare, edited by Andrew Knight, Clive Phillips, and Paula Sparks, 399–413. London: Routledge, 2023.
Martinez, José, and Cara von Nolting. “Review: ‘Animal Welfare’ – A European Concept.” Animal: The International Journal of Animal Biosciences 17, no. S1 (2023): 100741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2023.100839.
Müllerová, Hana. “Zvíře jako objekt právních vztahů.” In Days of Law 2010, edited by Radovan Dávid, David Sehnálek, Jiří Valdhans, 1916–28. Brno: Masaryk University, 2010.
Punčochář, Pavel, Lukáš Bohuslav, Hana Brablcová, Derek Cummins, Jiří Dousek, Alena Klimt, Miroslav Krutina et al. Pes mezi paragrafy. Praha: Havlíček Brain Team, 2024.
Sentencing Council. “Animal Cruelty.” Accessed February 2, 2026. https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/animal-cruelty/.
State Veterinary Administration. “Annual Reports.” Overview by topic. Accessed February 1, 2026. https://www.svscr.cz/category/dokumenty-a-publikace/prehled-podle-temat/vyrocni-zpravy/.
Vomáčka, Vojtěch. “Calibrating Green Compliance: EU Framework for Effective, Proportionate and Dissuasive Penalties in Environmental Protection.” ERA Forum 25, no. 2 (2024): 281–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027–024–00801-z.
Masaryk University in Brno https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4382-1754
