By Thalía López Sancho

Overview

This article explores the transformative legal status of companion animals in Spain, examining how recent statutory reforms have shifted their legal classification from property to sentient beings across civil, family, administrative, and criminal law. By contrasting the historical patrimonial approach with current legislative mandates, analysing key judicial precedents, and evaluating broader societal and European influences, this analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the modern Spanish animal welfare legal framework and its remaining enforcement challenges.

1. Introduction and Change of Legal Status

Spanish civil law underwent a profound doctrinal and regulatory paradigm shift following the entry into force of Law 17/2021, of December 15, which fundamentally reformed the legal regime applicable to animals across the Civil Code, the Mortgage Law, and the Civil Procedure Law (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil).

To fully appreciate the significance of this reform, it is necessary to contrast the current legal framework with the historical background. Before the enactment of Law 17/2021, companion animals shared the legal nature of inanimate things or movable assets (bienes muebles semovientes), falling within the asset categories traditionally governed by Article 333 of the Spanish Civil Code. Under this classical patrimonial logic, animals were legally treated as property: they could be seized by creditors to satisfy human debts, pledged as collateral in agricultural mortgages, or divided alongside household furniture during the liquidation of marital assets.

Following the entry into force of Law 17/2021, this reified vision was formally abolished. The introduction of Article 333 bis into the Civil Code explicitly recognised animals as “living beings endowed with sensitivity” (seres vivos dotados de sensibilidad), establishing a legal status distinct from inanimate property. This change is far more than a symbolic statement of principles; it directly alters the exercise of ownership rights. Under statutory amendments to Article 605 of the Civil Procedure Law, companion animals are now strictly non-attachable (inembargables) and cannot be seized in enforcement proceedings. Furthermore, Article 333 bis.2 CC establishes that an owner’s proprietary powers are limited by the affirmative duty to ensure the physical and psychological welfare of the animal.

2. Intersection with Family Law: Custody and Cohabitation

The practical impact of recognizing animals as sentient beings is most clearly observed in marital breakdowns, relationship dissolutions, and family law disputes.

Comparative Analysis: Pre- vs. Post-Reform Regimes

Prior to the 2021 legislative reform, Spanish judges handling divorce or separation proceedings were constrained by strict ownership rules. In the “Before” scenario, a pet was awarded exclusively to whichever spouse held formal proof of purchase, an invoice, or official registration on the pet’s microchip, regardless of who provided daily care or who shared a stronger bond with the animal. Courts lacked statutory authority to establish visitation schedules, shared maintenance, or custody arrangements for animals unless the spouses reached a voluntary contractual agreement.

In the “After” scenario, Law 17/2021 modified Articles 90, 91, and 92 of the Civil Code to integrate animal welfare directly into family law proceedings. The regulatory agreement (convenio regulador) drawn up by divorcing spouses must now include provisions for the cohabitation arrangement and the allocation of maintenance expenses for companion animals (Article 90.1.b CC). In the absence of a mutual agreement, or if the proposed agreement is harmful to the animal’s wellbeing, judicial authorities must determine shared or individual custody periods and financial contributions, prioritising the animal’s welfare and family interests over formal ownership documents (Article 92 CC).

Judicial Application and Case Law

Recent judicial practice demonstrates how courts have adapted to this statutory transformation:

• Pre-Reform Judicial Stance: Even shortly before the statutory enactment, courts struggled with the lack of explicit code provisions. In Judgment No. 11/2021 of the Court of First Instance No. 11 of Madrid (October 7, 2021), judges had to rely on creative interpretations of joint ownership (copropiedad) to establish shared custody schedules, illustrating the clear limitations of the old legal regime.
• Post-Reform Judicial Application: Rulings issued after the reform demonstrate the routine application of sentient-based family law principles. A prominent example is Judgment No. 526/2023 of the Provincial High Court of Pontevedra (Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra), where the court awarded primary physical custody of the family dog to one spouse while ordering the ex-spouse to pay €40 per month in pet maintenance, alongside 50% of extraordinary veterinary costs. The court treated the animal’s maintenance as a distinct legal obligation analogous to family support charges.

Furthermore, the reform incorporated an essential protective safeguard under Article 92.7 CC: judges are explicitly prohibited from granting joint or individual care of an animal (or children) to a spouse with a history or credible indications of domestic or gender violence, specifically addressing instances where animal abuse is weaponised as a form of vicarious psychological abuse against a partner or children.

3. Duties of Ownership and Civil Liability

At the administrative level and regarding responsible ownership, Law 7/2023, of March 28, on the protection of the rights and welfare of animals, established a unified legal framework imposing mandatory duties directly on pet owners and possessors.

Prior to Law 7/2023, administrative regulations were fragmented across Spain’s 17 autonomous communities, resulting in conflicting registration standards, differing definitions of responsible ownership, and unequal levels of protection. Under classical private law, harm caused to or by an animal was handled strictly as a matter of economic property loss or simple physical damage.

Under the current framework, Law 7/2023 establishes nationwide standards under Article 24, including the obligation to keep animals in dignified conditions, provide appropriate health care, complete mandatory owner training, and comply with strict identification rules. Non-compliance, abandonment, or negligence are classified into minor, serious, and very serious administrative infractions, backed by deterrent fines reaching up to €200,000 for severe violations.

In private law, while the general strict liability regime of the animal possessor remains anchored in Article 1905 of the Civil Code, Law 17/2021 brought a crucial development regarding third-party damage. When a companion animal is injured or killed by a third party, courts now recognize that owners are entitled to compensation not only for objective veterinary costs but also for moral damages (daño moral), explicitly acknowledging the severe emotional distress caused by harm inflicted upon a sentient family member.

4. Criminal Protection Against Maltreatment and Abandonment

Under previous iterations of the Criminal Code (specifically the former Article 337), animal abuse offenses were restricted primarily to domestic or tamed animals, requiring prosecutors to prove severe, unjustified physical injury or death. Penalties were historically light: basic abuse carried maximum prison sentences of just 3 to 12 months, while cases resulting in death capped out at 18 months. Because first-time offenders in Spain receiving sentences under two years rarely serve time behind bars, actual prison time was almost non-existent. Furthermore, financial penalties under administrative animal welfare laws were often modest, typically ranging between €30 and €15,000 depending on the region.

The updated criminal framework (via Organic Law 3/2023) significantly raises the stakes, expanding protection to all vertebrate animals – including wildlife. Under Article 340 bis CP, abusing an animal causing injuries that require veterinary treatment now carries a choice between 3 to 18 months in prison OR a daily fine system lasting 6 to 12 months. If aggravating circumstances apply – such as using weapons, acting in front of a minor, or causing permanent impairment – prison terms rise up to 24 months. Crucially, if the abuse results in the animal’s death, prison sentences jump to 12 to 24 months (and up to 36 months in extreme or multi-aggravated cases), making real prison time a far more realistic prospect for perpetrators.

In addition, offenders face mandatory disqualification from keeping animals or working in animal-related professions for 1 to 5 years. For milder cases without lasting injury, Article 340 quater imposes minor criminal fines, while the complementary Animal Welfare Law (Law 7/2023) introduces administrative fines ranging from €500 up to €200,000 for very severe infractions. Finally, Article 340 ter CP explicitly penalizes abandoning a vertebrate animal in dangerous conditions with 1 to 6 months of daily fines or 31 to 90 days of community service, alongside up to 3 years of animal ownership disqualification.

5. Conclusion: Wider Implications, Drivers, and Future Challenges

The evolution of animal law in Spain marks a decisive transition from a historical patrimonial approach to an integrated protective framework founded upon sentience.

Societal and European Context

This legislative overhaul did not occur in a vacuum. It reflects broader European harmonisation trends rooted in Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which obliges Member States to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings. Spain’s legislative modernisation aligns its civil and penal systems with neighbouring European jurisdictions such as France, Portugal, Switzerland, and Austria. Socially, these legal reforms respond to the reality of modern Spanish households – where registered companion animals currently outnumber minors under 15 years old – formally acknowledging the sociopolitical concept of the “multi-species family” (familia multiespecie).

Remaining Limitations and Challenges

Despite these major statutory achievements, several practical and doctrinal challenges remain:

1. Procedural Gaps for Unmarried Couples: While marital divorces are explicitly governed by Civil Code Articles 90–92, the breakdown of de facto couples (parejas de hecho) still lacks dedicated procedural rules, forcing courts to apply marital provisions by judicial analogy.
2. Administrative Execution Delays: Regulatory delays – such as completing national positive lists for permissible pets and fully implementing mandatory civil liability insurance – continue to create practical uncertainty for pet owners and enforcement agencies alike.
3. Balancing Rights: Judiciary bodies must continuously refine the balance between residual ownership titles (such as microchip registration records) and the genuine ethological welfare of the animal during high-conflict custody disputes.

Ultimately, Spanish law now recognises that animal ownership carries legal duties that transcend property management, establishing a comprehensive legal framework that intertwines civil rights, administrative care duties, and criminal sanctions to guarantee the protection and dignity of sentient beings.

About the author:

Thalía López Sancho is a Law student at the University of Zaragoza. Her interest in animal protection law stems from a deep love and respect for animals, driven by the belief that the legal framework must be the key tool to guarantee their welfare.

References:

• Civil Code Reform (Legal Status of Animals): Law 17/2021, of December 15, amending the civil regime of animals, the Mortgage Law, and the Civil Procedure Law (specifically introducing Article 333 bis and non-attachment under Article 605 LEC).
• Family Law and Custody: Articles 90, 91, and 92 (including paragraph 7 regarding vicarious abuse) of the Spanish Civil Code following the Law 17/2021 reform.
• Pre-Reform Judicial Precedent: Order of the Court of First Instance No. 11 of Madrid, dated October 7, 2021 (custody arrangement based on co-ownership due to prior legal gaps).
• Post-Reform Case Law: Judgment No. 526/2023 of the Provincial High Court of Pontevedra (application of custody principles and financial maintenance of €40 monthly for ordinary expenses plus 50% of extraordinary costs).
• Administrative Protection and Animal Welfare: Law 7/2023, of March 28, on the protection of animal rights and welfare (Article 24 on ownership duties and Articles 73 to 76 on administrative infractions and fines up to €200,000).
• Civil Liability: Article 1905 of the Spanish Civil Code (general strict liability regime for animal possessors) and judicial recognition of moral damages (daño moral) for the injury or loss of sentient companion animals.
• Criminal Code Reform (Abuse and Abandonment): Organic Law 3/2023, of March 28, amending Organic Law 10/1995 of the Criminal Code regarding animal abuse offenses (Articles 340 bis, 340 ter, and 340 quater on prison sentences, fines, and disqualifications).
• European Framework: Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), formally recognizing animals as sentient beings.