At present, an official may only enter the business and living premises of a person who keeps animals for commercial purposes after applying for and receiving permission from an administrative court.

In the future, however, it would be sufficient for officials to decide on their own to enter the animal keeper's property, in cases where there was justified suspicion, with an administrative court's authorization only to be requested retrospectively.

"Most of the time, it is not known in advance what the Agriculture and Food Board (PTA) will encounter when investigating tips, so the need to inspect the property may arise on site," the explanatory memorandum to the Animal Protection Bill states.

"For example, this is often the case when animals are kept for commercial purposes in private homes or farmsteads — that is, breeding facilities. Such private homes and farmsteads should be considered business premises, i.e. enterprises. To avoid the need to apply for prior authorization from an administrative court for the inspection of each such property, it is reasonable, in the interests of animal welfare, to establish a special rule in the Animal Protection Act: If a living space is also used as a business premise, a law enforcement authority may inspect it during working or opening hours without prior authorization from the administrative court," the bill states.

Hedvig Liblikas, senior specialist at the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture's food safety department and one of the bill's authors, stressed that the measure would apply only to people who keep animals for commercial purposes and who, by law, are required to notify the authorities and obtain a permit for that activity.

At the same time, current law does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes commercial animal keeping. Explaining a fairly common situation, where a pet owner decides, for example, to have one litter of puppies during a dog's lifetime and sell a few of them, Liblikas said that this could fall under commercial activity — though not necessarily. "It could be either one [or the other]. It's not necessarily a business activity," Liblikas said.

"The owner of a dog that has had one litter does not automatically fall into that category, but if the dog's owner breeds multiple litters, clearly for business purposes, then they do," she went on.

Asked whether the new "rapid response" option to enter homes without prior administrative court authorization might infringe on the rights of animal owners, who could become victims of malicious complaints, Liblikas' answer was that the ministry cannot foresee every possible situation. "That's the job of the supervisory authorities," she stated.

"The societal expectation is that violations of the Animal Protection Act get responded to quickly. Applying for court authorization takes time," Liblikas noted.

"This would provide an additional tool for the PTA to carry out its duties more effectively, without needing to hire more employees," she added.

Minister of Agriculture and Regional Affairs Hendrik Terras (Eesti 200) also said that the goal of dispensing with prior administrative court authorization in such cases is to give the PTA the ability to respond faster to cases of animal maltreatment.

"However, this cannot be done arbitrarily — there must be a present justified suspicion that an animal is being mistreated or that the conditions of animal keeping are not being met. This justified suspicion must later be proven," the minister stated.

At present, a similar exemption in state supervision already exists in several other laws governing agriculture — such as the Food Act, the Feed Act, the Plant Protection Act, and the Organic Farming Act — all of which allow officials to enter premises used for business purposes and without prior authorization from an administrative court.

The new Animal Protection Act is planned to enter into force on January 1, 2027, pending a Riigikogu vote.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!