Federal Supreme Court, 26.02.2026, 6B_725/2025
Facts
A veterinarian (the appellant) was responsible for the care of a horse suffering from Cushing's syndrome. In January 2020, a colleague alerted him to a suspicion of this condition. Despite this warning, the veterinarian persisted in using an exclusively homeopathic approach, without undertaking the necessary conventional investigations. In June 2020, another colleague, consulted by the appellant himself, confirmed the diagnosis via a blood test and recommended urgent medical treatment according to traditional medicine (Pergolide treatment). The appellant ignored these findings and continued his own protocol. The horse's condition deteriorated severely, showing signs of intense pain. At the end of September 2020, a fourth veterinarian observed the animal's intense suffering, and it was euthanized on October 1, 2020. A judicial expert report subsequently established that the unconventional approach was inappropriate, that the treatment had failed to alleviate the animal's suffering, and that short-interval monitoring, in accordance with professional standards, was lacking. The veterinarian was convicted in the first instance, and subsequently on appeal, for negligent violation of the Animal Protection Act (APA). He filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the principles applicable to the negligent mistreatment of animals (Art. 26 para. 2 APA). This offense, which is a crime of omission, is committed when the perpetrator, through culpable negligence (Art. 12 para. 3 SCC), neglects an animal and thereby infringes upon its dignity. An infringement of dignity occurs when the animal's well-being is compromised, particularly by failing to spare it pain or suffering (Art. 3 and 4 APA). A veterinarian, as a person who cares for animals, has a duty of care and a position as a guarantor. They must act in accordance with the rules of medical practice to preserve the well-being of the animals entrusted to them. The Federal Supreme Court also examines the appellant's formal grievances, including the alleged violation of the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 Constitution) and the arbitrary establishment of facts (Art. 9 Constitution), as well as the principles of sentencing (Art. 47 SCC).
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court rejected all of the appellant's grievances.
- Regarding the establishment of facts and arbitrariness: The Court ruled that the cantonal court did not establish the facts in an arbitrary manner. The core of the complaint was not an action, but an omission: the lack of adequate follow-up and the refusal to implement a recommended conventional treatment. The argument that the animal's owner preferred complementary medicine was dismissed. Indeed, through his inaction and failure to inform the owner about the severity of the situation and the appropriate therapeutic options, the veterinarian deprived the owner of the opportunity to make an informed choice. The lower court's assessment of the judicial expert report was deemed sustainable.
- Regarding the violation of the Animal Protection Act (APA): The Federal Supreme Court confirmed that the veterinarian breached his duty of care. Faced with clear "red flags" and a confirmed diagnosis, the standards of veterinary practice required him to propose a conventional treatment (multimodal with Pergolide) and to ensure close follow-up to evaluate the treatment's effectiveness and the animal's pain level. By persisting with an ineffective unconventional approach and failing to provide any follow-up, he negligently prolonged the horse's suffering and compromised its dignity. His position as a guarantor required him to be proactive, which he failed to do.
- Regarding sentencing: The penalty of 50 day-fines was deemed consistent with the law. The cantonal court properly justified its decision and did not abuse its discretionary power. The culpability was rightly classified as serious, due to the denial, the obstinacy in the face of colleagues' opinions, and the indifference shown toward the animal's fate. Other arguments (lack of prior convictions, personal situation, comparison with other cases) were dismissed as irrelevant or unfounded.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal to the extent that it was admissible. The veterinarian's conviction for negligent violation of the Animal Protection Act is upheld. The legal costs are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Claudia Malaguerra
