Two fighting dogs bit a woman in Kyiv region: the court fined the owner but did not confiscate the animals

The Rokytne District Court of Kyiv region considered a case on bringing to administrative responsibility under part 3 of article 154 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (CUAO) the owner of fighting breed dogs that ran beyond the boundaries of his property and bit a neighbor. The court examined the presence of an administrative offense and the possibility of applying an additional penalty in the form of confiscation of the animals.

Circumstances of the case

The court established that on May 20, 2026, around 8:00 PM, the owner of fighting breed dogs, being at his place of residence, allowed the animals to leave his property. As a result, the dogs attacked a neighbor and bit her on the arms, causing bodily injuries and harm to her health.

During the court hearing, the man explained that in the evening he was doing gardening work. When the phone rang, he went inside the house, leaving the garden gate ajar but not latched. According to him, the wind opened the gate, and the dogs, which were on a leash, ran into the garden. At that time, the neighbor was on the adjacent land plot, and the animals attacked her.

Hearing screams, the man ran outside, saw the open gate and the dogs biting the woman. He then returned the animals to the yard, helped the victim treat her wounds, contacted her relatives, and later the woman was taken to the hospital. The dog owner admitted his guilt, noting that he did not properly secure the gate.

The victim confirmed that two dogs belonging to the neighbor attacked her. She requested to hold him administratively liable and to apply confiscation of the animals.

Position and conclusions of the court

The court noted that Law No. 1684-IX of July 15, 2021, amended article 154 of the CUAO and added part three, which came into force on November 8, 2021. Part 3 of article 154 provides liability for actions defined in part one of this article if they caused harm to a person's health or property.

Analyzing legislative changes, the court pointed out that before November 2021, qualifying features of repeated offenses and causing harm to health or property were combined in one part of the article. After the amendments, the legislator separated these cases, highlighting causing harm to a person's health or property in a separate part 3 of article 154 of the CUAO.

At the same time, the court stated that after these changes, the legislator did not specify the authority empowered to consider cases under part 3 of article 154. However, the court concluded that such cases are subject to court consideration, as they involve more socially dangerous offenses, and the sanction provides for the possibility of confiscating animals. The court also referred to article 124 of the Constitution of Ukraine, article 18 of the Law "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges," article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine, and provisions of the CUAO regarding confiscation of property only by court decision.

To confirm the person's guilt, the court examined the administrative offense protocol, police officer's report, statement acceptance protocol, photo materials, documents about the offender, and the victim's medical documentation.

In particular, according to the medical record extract, it was established that after the dog attack, the victim was hospitalized in the surgical department with multiple bite wounds on both hands and forearms. She underwent primary surgical treatment of the wounds on the upper limbs.

Evaluating the collected evidence, the court concluded that the dog owner improperly closed the gate, which led to the free exit of the animals onto the neighbor's land plot. Thus, he violated the rules for keeping and walking dogs, and his actions caused harm to the victim's health. The court recognized the composition of the administrative offense under part 3 of article 154 of the CUAO as proven.

The court separately analyzed the possibility of applying an additional penalty in the form of confiscation of the animals. The court noted that to enforce a confiscation order, documents regarding the seizure of property or a certificate of its absence are required. Moreover, article 265-5 of the CUAO provides for temporary seizure of the animal until the administrative offense decision comes into force.

However, the case materials No. 375/1294/26 did not contain a protocol of description or seizure of the dogs, information about their location, or data on temporary seizure. The court believed that the absence of such documents makes it impossible to enforce the decision regarding confiscation.

Considering the nature of the offense, the degree of guilt, and the absence of established mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the court concluded that an administrative penalty in the form of a fine without confiscation of the animals is necessary.

By court ruling, the person was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under part 3 of article 154 of the CUAO and fined 1700 UAH. The offender was also charged a court fee of 665.60 UAH.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.