Serbia: Do The Republic Veterinary Inspectors Know the Law ? – It Appears That They Still Live In and Use Legislation From A Serbian A World PRE 2005 !! – and That Is Very Dangerous for Serbian Animal Welfare (and Serbian EU Membership In the Future !).

Serbian  Flag


I never show something so stupid like the demand of republic veterinary inspector of Serbia, Subotica, because she, republic veterinary inspector :Mrs Matilda Sobloher knows and republic veterinary inspector :Mrs Sanja Celebicanin knows too : there is no free place for 600 dogs , because 170 Serbian cities have NOT adequate shelters .

government_approved 2226ASP6179944780

These inspectors also know the fact that nobody may replace these 600 – they still have own place, Subotica city has NOT any legal city shelter , and nobody may touch these 600 , they are protected BY LAW ! If somebody touch dogs at Titogradska 53 , EPAR would immediately bring a criminal charge against everybody who maybe could be involved by any way.

It is veterinary inspector obligation and duty ( still long time ago, FROM 2.11.2005.) : and they must write urgent demand to city authorities : immediately start with care about these 600 city-dogs and also about all street dogs and cats in Subotica.

The same , equal situation is in the whole of Serbia – because of the authorities non implementation of up to date existing laws for 8 years . Those responsible for the non implementation are veterinary inspectors.


Dr. Slavica Mazak Beslic – Subotica.

Additional SAV comment:

We at SAV would support Dr. Beslic by immediately writing once again to the EU and informing them that Serbia is NOT implementing its own ‘rule of law’ – a fundamental requirement which must be shown to be happening within any member state seeking EU accession (membership).


Send e mails of complaint to:

The following text relates to the following link, but also  gives an overview  of current legislation


Serbian LAW – Some very Important points to be considered especially relating to Shelter Alex: 

After three days at the ‘shelter’, dogs are taken to Novi Sad city where they are killed by ‘euthanasia’, using Pravilnik 29/94 legislation.

Prior to the new Serbian Veterinary Law of 02/10/2005, there was an old law dating from 1991 for the health protection of animals. In agreement with the old law of 1991, the authorities produced their own other ‘underlaw’ (extra law) regulationnamed ‘Pravilnik 29/94’, which was intorduced to allow the killing of animals after they were held in pounds for 3 to 7 days.

** From 02/10/2005, the new Veterinary Law Article 168 effectively destroyed everything that was written in Pravilnik 29/94, ** because the 2005 law demanded the care of animals.

Pravilnik 29/94 was overwritten by Article 168, the result being that all killing of animals was forbidden apart only from cases for Rabies infected areas, which were covered by application of Articles 64 and 65 of the Veterinary Law.

By continuing to undertake the killing of animals after 3 to 7 days in accordance with regulation Pravilnik 29/94, the authorities were then in a situation where they were working in opposition to the actual existing law.

But it is very much the case, even up to the present day, where authorities are still using Pravilnik 29/94 as a reason for the killing of animals.  But in reality, Pravilnik 29/94 became nonexistent on 02/10/2005 with the introduction of the new Veterinary Law (Article 168).

Hence there should be no killing, but animal care instead.

Pravilnik 29/94 is only an ‘underlaw’ (extra law) regulation, has very less power than the actual law, and most importantly, must be in agreement with the existing law.  Pravilnik 29/94 was valid originally (1991 on) to protect animal health but is now in opposition to the new and current animal law – the new Veterinary Law Article 168 of 02/10/2005.

Serbian campaigners have written to the Constitutional Court saying that it is unlawful for Shinters (Dogcatchers) and also veterinarians to kill stray dogs and cats only after they have been held for three (3) days, as this is now old and outdated legislation.  Killing is forbidden under the new Veterinary law.

Campaigners have now heard from the court in writing, and they say that no analysis of the case is necessary for Pravilnik 29/94 as it has been replaced by the new Veterinary Law Article 168 (02/10/2005).

This is exactly what the campaigners had said, ie. that the old ‘underlaw’ (extra law) of Pravilnik 29/94 was still being used when it fact it has been overwritten by the new Veterinary Law Article 168 of 02/10/2005.

In addition, Article 46 of the new Veterinary Law (02/10/2005) states that the killing of stray cats and dogs is forbidden and that instead they should be provided with care.

The word from the Serbian Constitutional (law) Court is that from 2005, animals should be provided with care and not be killed.

It would appear that all of the public firms responsible for garbage collection in Serbian cities are still working to, and effectively using Pravilnik 29/94 rather than Article 46 (168) of the new Veterinary Law.

In effect, by still working to this now non existent law, these public firms who collect and kill strays are UNDERTAKING ILLEGAL WORK– they should be working in accordance with the new Veterinary Law Article 46 (168) of 02/10/2005 which demands care for the animals.

Unlike the Temerin ‘shelter’ dogs which are illegally killed after only 3 days, Cats which are taken to the ‘shelter’ do not even live three days – they are killed immediately.

A detailed explanation of the legislation is given in our past SAV Link:

Constitutional Court ruling link:

You have to ask if the Subotica republic veterinary inspector :Mrs Matilda Sobloher and republic veterinary inspector Mrs Sanja Celebicanin actually know what the law IS in Serbia ? – It would appear that they do NOT know the laws of Serbian animal welfare, despite their positions !!!

Serbian campaigners have now taken this case to the court of human rights in Strasbourg – an EU court.  The caseGarbage collectors in Serbian cities are still working using the (now) non existent Pravilnik 29/94 rather than Article 46 (168) of the new and current Veterinary Law of 02/10/2005 which demands care.  In addition, campaigners have requested justification be presented for all the animal killings by the authorities from 02/10/2005 right up to the present day.

Serbian authorities  and officials are responsible for ensuring the correct laws are implemented are:

Mrs. Sanja Čelebićanin  -Chief of  Veterinary Inspection

Mr. Zoran Mićović – Director of Veterinary Department

Mr. Radivoje Kaurin – Chief of  Hunting – Forests Inspection.

So the situation is that many Serbian authorities are not implementing the most recent and current legislation which would give protection to animals in shelters, but are instead using old and outdated, non existing legislation (Pravilnik 29/94) as justification for the continued killing of animals held in shelters.

Another very important factor here is that what has been happening since 02/10/2005 is that existing Serbian law (legislation) has not been implemented throughout the country in relation to animal welfare.

Probably the most important point:

And the proof of the implementation of the ‘Rule of Law’ is a paramount requirement for any nation wishing to become a future member of the EU !

And so what about the ‘Shelter’ for animals at Temerin or any other location in Serbia – such as Shelter Alex in Subotica ?

We declare that the alleged ‘shelter’ at Temerin is NOT shelter but a terrible, unlawful place being funded by Serbian taxpayers to the tune of many millions of Dinars.

Is this facility simply a place that takes in public money allegedly caring for animals, whilst at the same time killing them immediately (cats) or after just three days (dogs) using outdated legislation which was replaced in 2005 ?

Animals such as these dogs and cats which are taken from the streets by shinter teams, are not marked or identified in any way.  There is no way that the authorities can provide details of the animals taken by the shinters, be it 10 dogs or 100 dogs captured.  In effect, with no accountability of their work, these public firms can ask for as much public money as they wish – and very often / always they are provided with it !!

Can this be called ‘organised crime’ ?

If a full sterilisation, vaccination, identification and care system was established for all stray animals taken by the shinters, then the facilities such as the Temerin ‘shelter’ would be very much more accountable (ie. Record keeping) of all animals which enter the facility.

As it is, by using old, outdated, self created (mass killing) legislation such as Pravilnik 29/94 rather than working to what should be current animal protection legislation, (ie. Article 46 (168) of the new and current Veterinary Law of 02/10/2005), the authorities and those involved with it appear to in a situation where they can request, and are provided with an endless supply of public money public money for killing animalsWHICH IS ILLEGAL (since 2005).