In a decision of 3 July 2026, the Court of Cassation declared inadmissible the appeal brought by the defendant in the trial over the death of the horse Found Goal Pag, which died on 12 August 2020 in Caserta, thereby upholding the one-year prison sentence for killing an animal (Article 544-bis of the Criminal Code).
According to judgment no. 3832/24 of the Naples Court of Appeal of 4 March 2026, the animal, which was used to pull a tourist carriage at the Royal Palace of Caserta, died of heatstroke, with a body temperature of 42.8° and secondary cardiorespiratory failure, directly attributable to the working conditions imposed on it, which were incompatible with its ethological needs and with the physiology of equines exposed to high temperatures.
The horse had been worked continuously, with breaks of 10–20 seconds, and watered through a rubber hose, a method considered wholly inadequate given the extremely hot day and the physical effort it was subjected to.
The post-mortem examination confirmed the absence of any pre-existing or concurrent disease, establishing that the death was directly caused by the working conditions. Death occurred with a body temperature incompatible with the animal’s survival.
In addition, in this case the City of Caserta’s rules governing animal-drawn transport had been entirely disregarded, putting economic interest before the horse’s protection. Subsequent investigations also revealed that the horse that died was not the one authorised for the service.
All of this amounted to a serious breach of the minimum conditions for protecting animal welfare, constituting the offence under Article 544-bis of the Criminal Code and making final the criminal conviction and one-year prison sentence for killing an animal. The Supreme Court also ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings, to pay 3,000 euros to the Fines Fund (Cassa delle ammende) and to reimburse the costs of the associations that had joined the proceedings as civil parties.
Animal welfare as an obligation
The welfare of working animals is not an abstract value but a legal obligation; breaching it can therefore, as in this case, give rise to criminal liability.
Article 544-bis of the Criminal Code applies to anyone who, out of cruelty or without necessity, causes the death of an animal. The Court interpreted the provision by recognising that the animal’s death was the direct consequence of the working conditions imposed, that those conditions were incompatible with the animal’s needs, and that the carriage driver’s conduct breached the duties of protection and care that arise
from keeping an animal.
Systemic impact on tourist activities using equines
In Italy there is no single national framework regulating the use of animals in tourist activities. This regulatory gap has a direct impact on the welfare of the animals used in these practices.
The recent reform of the Highway Code, approved in 2025, could have been an opportunity to fill at least part of this gap. However, the so-called “botticelle amendment”, which sought to ban the use of animals on public roads for activities involving injury, cruelty or unbearable work, was rejected. The failure to approve the amendment confirms the persistence of a tradition that
is still not governed by uniform criteria.
Confirming how critical the situation is, on 4 July 2026 in Rome a horse pulling a tourist carriage was taken ill while travelling along Via del Corso, collapsing because of the heat (35°) and exhaustion.
The incident, filmed by passers-by and shared on social media, caused strong public outrage and shows how equines continue to be exposed to serious and foreseeable risks, despite municipal ordinances and growing public attention.
An animal’s life is a legal interest in its own right, and its protection cannot and must not be subordinated to economic or tourist demands. This approach is fully consistent with growing public sensitivity on the matter and, above all, with EU animal welfare legislation.
The European framework
Over the years the European Union has built up a body of animal welfare legislation based on positive obligations and on the preventive function of risk, whereas Italian protection in this area consists of fragmentary criminal provisions, without a framework law on animal welfare or effective administrative tools. Municipalities may regulate, but since they are not obliged to, rules are often absent or inconsistent. Local and national institutions cannot keep looking the other way in the face of the suffering and death of horses used to pull tourist carriages. Today, with clear legal obligations and case law that recognises criminal liability, keeping this practice going means knowingly ignoring the protection of animals.
