Autor se u radu bavi problemom primjene instituta nužne obrane kod kaznenog
djela mučenja ili ubijanja životinje. Polazeći od zakonske definicije nužne
obrane, postavlja pitanje njezina tumačenja u dijelu koji se odnosi na nužnu
pomoć (odbijanje napada „od drugoga“). Konkretno, pokušava se razraditi
središnje, ali i najkontroverznije pitanje može li se istodobni protupravni
napad odbijati i od životinje, odnosno jesu li život i tjelesna cjelovitost životinje
pravna dobra koja se mogu štititi nužnom obranom. Ukratko se razrađuje i
problematika životinjskoga pravnog subjektiviteta i objektiviteta. Uvažavajući
hrvatsku i američku sudsku praksu (u kojoj za razliku od hrvatske sudske
prakse mučenje ili ubijanje životinje nije novina), autor pokušava hipotetski
dočarati kakvi bi se predmeti mogli naći i pred našim pravosuđem te kako bi ih
naši sudovi mogli i trebali rješavati. Također, komparativnopravno analiziraju
se stavovi iz njemačke pravne literature u vezi s primjenom nužne obrane kod
ovoga kaznenog djela. Krajnji je cilj stvoriti mehanizam koji neće obeshrabriti
pomagače životinja da u granicama nužne obrane, odnosno nužne pomoći
(bez njezina prekoračenja) spriječe njihovo mučenje ili ubijanje te da životinji,
koja kao dio okoliša predstavlja Kaznenim zakonom zaštićeno pravno dobro,
omogući ostvarivanje (načelima prirodnog prava zajamčenog) prava na život i
tjelesnu cjelovitost.In this paper, the author considers the issue of applying the legal concept of
self-defense in the criminal offense of cruelty to animals. Starting from the legal
definition of self-defense, the author raises the issue of its interpretation in the area
referring to the defense of others (repelling an attack attempted by another). In
particular, the author strives to address the central, but also the most controversial
issue of whether the coinciding illicit attack can be repelled by an animal or whether
life and physical integrity of an animal are legal goods that can be protected by
means of self-defense. The author briefly analyzes the issue of legal subjectivity
and objectivity of animals as well. Acknowledging the Croatian and the US
jurisprudence (which jurisprudence, unlike the Croatian case law, does not consider
cruelty to animals as a novelty), the author hypothetically evokes the issues that
might occur before the Croatian judicial system, and how they could and should be
resolved by Croatian courts. In terms of comparative law, the paper also examines
the attitudes towards the use of self-defense in this type of criminal offense in
German legal references. The ultimate goal of the paper is to develop a mechanism
that will not discourage animal helpers, within the limits of self-defense, that is the
defense of others, to prevent cruelty to an animal being, which animal being, as a
part of the environment protected under the Croatian Criminal Code, is a protected
legal good, and to enable an animal being to have the right to life and physical
integrity (guaranteed in accordance with the principles of natural law)
