FARM STORY – PART II.
The petition we received about property protection, was close to the boundaries of defamation, and was full of irrational and unfounded accusations as well as false evidence. We received the petition on 25th March 2017. Our legal representative in a response on 31st March, with detailed, appropriate supporting evidence, rejected all the allegations that were listed in it. Our attorney requested access to the files in order to review and examine the signatures of people that are attached to the case. Finally, our attorney added further evidence to the case on 12th April.
In our opinion, the petition about property protection is based on untruthful information and without any doubt it is malicious. Furthermore, the petition did not meet the legal conditions of property protection; therefore, we requested its rejection.
The goal of our organisation is to ensure that our protégés that live on the Farm, are taken out for a walk three times a day, they receive the best treatment possible and they do not lack anything until they find forever homes. In addition, we provide them constant veterinary control to ensure their well-being.
The number of dogs in the stables is maximized: at the same time, we can and will only have up to 20-25 dogs. Only one dog lives in each kennel. Puppies, ill-, problematic dogs, or dogs without vaccination are not kept on the Farm. The medical attention our protégés receive includes microchips, compulsory vaccination against rabies and combined vaccination. In addition, they undergo a full medical examination, including blood test, test for Heart Worm Disease and later spaying/neutering.
The members of our organisation provide a course for our dogs with the goal of rehabilitating them as well as organise events, such as dog walking- and adoption days on the Farm and the walking paths around it, where visitors can meet our protégés and adopt them. While doing all these, we take good care of both the Farm and its environment, aiming to keep it tidy, which contributes to the preservation of the landscape of Piliscsaba.
The dogs are walked exclusively on the walking path that begins from the top of the Farm and always on a leash (!). Because these dogs are not attached to us yet, the risk of them escaping is high. Therefore, using a leash is crucial in order to call them back to us. The volunteers and visitors of our organisation are responsible people, who carry plastic bags with them for dog waste, which is provided by our organisation on the site. Therefore, dog waste always gets picked up.
This is not the case in the day-to-day practice of the dog owners of the Garancsliget Residential Park (respect for exceptions), where dogs regularly walk freely without supervision and do their business everywhere. The petitioner accused our dogs to pose a threat to the public health in the Residential Park by leaving, sometimes bloody, dog waste around. Therefore, we suggest him to please take into consideration the habits of local dogs when seeing dog waste around the area. In regards of the bloody dog waste, the veterinarian of our organisation confirmed in writing that none of our dogs had any health issues during those 4 months that would have resulted in such symptom.
We strongly reject the petitioner’s malicious and threatening comments that our organisation “works illegally, without permissions” and that Futrinka carries out “business-like taxable activities”.
Futrinka is a not-for-profit organisation that does not and cannot carry out profit oriented activities. All related official documents are accessible and can be downloaded from the organisation`s continuously updated website.
In addition, Futrinka, as a non-profit organisation, based on “The protection and welfare of animals Act XXVIII of 1998” directly carries out Veterinary, Epidemiological and Public Health tasks without the support of the state. All these tasks are listed in Futrinka`s current Articles of Association.
In regards of the noise that was criticised by the petitioner, we needed to mention that the dogs that stay in the stables do not bark at night. Unlike the 40 (!) dogs in the gardens of the residential houses. Any movement or noise at night easily triggers a barking-chain.
In our opinion, the facts that the stables can be locked with door on both sides, it is surrounded with pine trees and 40 cm tick stone walls and that the nearest neighbour is further than 60 metres, make our location as soundproof as it is realistically expectable and possible. Therefore, the accusation is malicious and without any grounds. In case the on-site inspection unexpectedly gives different results, we requested that, at our own expense, we would use an expert on noise measuring, who is registered in the Judicial Expert’s List. The goal would be to receive an expert`s opinion and evaluation based on measures carried out both at night and daytime.
Despite the fact that all on-site inspections found that it was quiet in the Farm, we requested both from the Mayor and from the Notary of the local municipality to order noise measuring. We did not receive any response.
The petitioner is obviously malicious. Besides making false statements, painting an untruthful picture about our organisation and defaming unjustly, he also distorts a number of facts in his petition. First of all, there are several duplications of names in his petition, there are invalid signatures as well as printed names without signatures. Furthermore, he failed to mention the expression “inner city land” when he refers to the maximum number of dogs allowed to hold and failed to display a 0 (zero) in the geographic registration number of the Farm, which would clearly indicate that the location lays outside the residential area.
The law created by the municipality of Piliscsaba, which regulates management of dogs 19/2010 (VI.1) specifically applies to dogs in residential areas. The Farm where Futrinka operates is located outside the residential area; therefore, the number of animals allowed to be kept there is not limited.
According to the property registry, the petitioner purchased his property in Piliscsaba after that Futrinka moved to the Farm and now filed the petition/complaint against us.
The riding hall has been operating on the Farm for almost 20 years. It began its activities long before the idea of the Garancsliget Residential Park was formulated; therefore, in our opinion, complaining about it now is unfair.
Obviously, at the time when each piece of land was purchased, prices reflected the fact that there was a farm in the immediate neighbourhood (where potentially 50 loud pigs or donkeys could be kept). Making a complaint later, while surely understanding the circumstances at the time of purchase, is unfair and unlawful.
In regards of the increasing traffic and the “strangers” on the Farm endangering public safety, we feel it is important to add that the owners of the horses have the right to visit them every day if they wish so. For instance, in case of a kindergarten or a doctor`s office, it would also be unrealistic to complain about the high traffic of people.
Honestly, horse owners, volunteer dog walkers and donors of our organisation do not classify as the most dangerous kinds of people. Surely, they do not pose any threat to the local community, and the residents of Piliscsaba should not be terrified of them.
In an average riding hall, often live around 8-10 dogs as pets. The characteristics of a property that is nearly 40 000 sqm easily allow the keeping of a large number of dogs, even carrying out activity such as breeding dogs.
Therefore, it is completely irrelevant whether the dogs in this property are in the care of a non-profit animal rescue organisation or kept by a private person as pets.
Meanwhile, as a response to the request of the registration authorisation dated 14th February 2017, a veterinarian visited the Farm on 28th March. He recorded in a report that he found everything in order, although he could not issue the authorization due to the ongoing property protection procedure (in the meantime, the permit was granted). On the meeting, we were suggested by a representative of the local municipality that we should write to the Notary of Piliscsaba and ask him to invite us and the petitioner to his office and give us the opportunity to discuss the issue peacefully. We wrote an electronic mail to the Notary, although, sadly we have not received any reply on our request. The only reply we received was, that in regards of the case, an on-site inspection was ordered for 6th April, 2017.
The on-site inspection found everything in order, about which a report was made.
On this site visit, after we asked, we received an unofficial answer to why have we not received any response to our request dated 28th March, to initiate a meeting where the conflict could be peacefully discussed. According to the unofficial answer, due to the other party`s aggressive behaviour, the municipality is afraid to provide the venue for the meeting. They fear that it would escalate to a point where police would have to be involved. (Meanwhile, a threatening SMS was received by the owners of the Farm, which said that we fight in vain, because everything has been already “fixed” that is why we do not receive any response to any of our requests.)
As a result of word-of-mouth, a large number of people started to sympathise with us both locally and nationwide. These supporters began to collect signatures and send letters to the Notary of Piliscsaba to demonstrate their support and that they stand beside Futrinka.
At this point, a background information became clear, according to which the chairman of a local organisation (who is also the financial adviser and member of the local municipality`s board, and a close friend of the Notary), and another leader of it – although not linked to the case officially – were fully informed about the entire case and the identity of our sympathizers. They took contact with our local sympathizers in various forms and threatened them for standing beside us. We provided all these information to the Notary and requested him to examine them. Unfortunately, our attorney has not received any response from the Notary on this request either.
Based on all the above-mentioned information, in our opinion, it is important to inform the Mayor of the city about the unlawful conduct of the proceedings. On 12th April 2017, within a personal meeting, we informed him about every aspect of the past events and asked him to take action. The Mayor suggested that we should take contact personally with the Notary. He even offered to arrange an appointment through his secretary and promised us a call-back, which unfortunately, has not happened.
12th April 2017, we sent another letter to the Notary of Piliscsaba, in which we included some additional documents and evidence to the case, although we had never had a chance to review the evidence that were collected against us. The documents we sent have not been assessed.
13th April 2017 the decision was issued, which was received by our organisation 21st April 2017.
