Can the condominium regulate cat ownership? Written by Dr. Cecília Kajó, lawyer

If you have been involved in the animal welfare system for a while and are keen to keep your knowledge up to date, you will know that after 2010, Hungarian local authorities were (or should have been) required to review local bylaws regulating animal husbandry.

Several higher laws were passed at the time that changed the logic of animal husbandry. For example, where previously the number of dogs that could be kept on a property was capped, the size of the property now determines the number of animals that can be kept. Municipal regulations cannot be in conflict with higher legislation (unfortunately, in many places they still are, because the control plan of the government agencies does not cover this type of legality control, and municipalities cannot or do not want to amend their regulations themselves).

Can the authorities limit how many animals you can keep?

So after 2010, we cannot say, for example, 3 dogs per property (however big it may be), but we have to take note that the government decree on keeping pets states that the minimum requirement for keeping a group of pets is, for example, 6 m² per dog. This means that up to 10 dogs can be kept in a 60 m² apartment. Of course, this does not mean that there should be so many dogs in such a large space, or that it would be good for them. However, the change also meant that, although it is no longer possible to prescribe the number of dogs that can be kept in advance (by decree), in the case of serious deficiencies in keeping, however, in individual cases, after an official procedure, it is still possible to prescribe a reduction in the number of animals, with the possibility of banning the irresponsible owner from keeping animals.

But what about cats?

There are relatively few legal requirements for cats in Hungary. No compulsory vaccination, no need to mark them with a transponder – thus removing one of the most important pieces of evidence that the authorities have to sanction the “prevention of escape” as required by law (this requirement is also mandatory for cats!), as the animal is unidentifiable.

It is an interesting question why the legislator did not think – although for years organisations have been saying that cats should be vaccinated against rabies, combined with a de-worming programme, in all animal welfare reforms. Because still in many places freeroaming cat ownership in vogue where strolling in public areas with other cats, visiting a nearby forest or field, meeting wild animals, hunting birds or small game, can be more at risk of infection than with dogs.

Difficult question

As the Hungarian government decree does not set any minimum space size for cats, the previous regulatory logic may work here: the municipality can cap the number of cats that can be kept on a property. Another question is how, in the course of an inspection, you can assess statements such as “the animals are not mine, they just wander into the gate” and how you can force the owner to reduce the number of animals. Where the animals might end up if such a decision is implemented is a bonus. To animal shelters, to overburdened shelters, or to the occasional foolish animal collectors who survive on donations and whose animals will be wasted by orders of magnitude?

The kitten on the loose is a consumable

I can say on behalf of myself and our association that we are not in favour of freeroaming cats. Not only, or not primarily, because it is prohibited by law. These cats are a consumable: they can be hit, poisoned, shot, infected and, unfortunately, cause great destruction to local wildlife, including protected and non-protected birds, reptiles and small game.

If not spayed or neutered, it contributes to the overstocking of the herd several times each year, which can cause serious conflicts in other places. Unfortunately, I have also had the “luck” in the past to receive reports from cat rescue organisations as a public enforcer that “our third cat is being killed by the neighbour’s dog, do something immediately”. A rescue person or organisation in particular would have the good sense to look after cats that are not kept outside – not here, hopefully they have since arrived.

What about condominiums?

Theoretically, they can decide on “anything” in the common parts (staircase, garbage chute, lift, storerooms, basement, corridor, yard, etc.), and those who did not vote for the decision at the assembly can challenge the decision in court for a limited period of time if they feel it could harm their rights or interests. Hopefully everyone agrees with the ban on keeping animals on common property and no one will go to court to have this type of decision overturned.

But what about separately owned apartments? The law on condominiums knows a few cases where you cannot decide to use your apartment for this and that purpose (or change its purpose: use it as a non-residential room, e.g. as an office) without any prior consultation or permission.

How long is animal husbandry a private matter?

The keeping of animals in the home is a private matter. It’s private as long as it’s not too noisy, not too smelly, not too animal cruelty, or to put it in a slightly strong term: human cruelty. Without zero information, pet owners have a visceral tendency to shout down or curse residents who dare to speak out because of a barking dog, a meowing cat, a smelly smell or an unlivable living environment.

But have we ever considered, for example, what life must be like for the animal itself if it “constantly” (not constantly, obviously, but often enough) entertains the community with a bored noise concert? If you wait all day for the family to come home from work and take you for a five-minute walk or get a five-minute session of littering and feeding all in one? For this type of problem, a condominium decision is no longer sufficient or appropriate. In the context of a livestock case or, for example, a neighbouring rights case, it can be examined whether the conditions of keeping are bad and that is why the animal is always making noise, or, for example, who has more or less right to what: the keeper to keep the animal or the neighbour to rest in peace?