LJUBLJANA – The case of the owner of the bearer, who several years ago was convinced that her pet must win the competition for the best retriever of Slovenia and was seeking the right for her four-legged friend in court, will surely be recorded in the archives as one of the more unusual court proceedings, ie found in our courts. Although the case was brought to court some time ago, it is no less interesting. However, another unusual element of the story was brought to court, where we were sentenced in accordance with the law on access to public information, covering all personal data of the participants. They took the anonymization of personal information so seriously that they also anonymized dog names and points received.
It reached second place
The woman, therefore, asked the Slovenian retriever club to declare the contest invalid, set aside the contest decision and reclassify it, but the Ljubljana district court dismissed the claim. According to the judgment, the dog's owner in the case asked the court to declare the result of the competition, organized and conducted by the Slovenian retriever club in 2015, incorrect. Her dog, the then-three-year-old happy rock and roll happy company, or Dante, placed second in the race, but the owner was convinced that instead of the 318 that had been awarded, she had to score 327 points that would he won and the winner with 342 points actually needs to have 307 points to be ranked second.
318 points were awarded to the dog, according to its owner, too little.
The lawsuit called for a recalculation of points for her dog and a ranking first, as well as a reassessment of the first-ranked dog, then the five-year-old Buck Rock from Morning Valley or Lars, as she was convinced that the decision of the defendants' club, which finds, contrary to club points and general acts, acts of the Slovenian Kennel Club and the rules of the International Kennel Club.
The judges decided there was nothing wrong with the result. PHOTOS: GULIVER / Shutterstock
She provided the club with documentation of her puppy's achievements and results, in January 2016 the club announced the dog's order, and a few days later posted a number of items on its website.
After appealing against the number of points received for the first-ranked dog and her second-ranked dog on January 25, 2016, they reclassified the points but did not change the ranking. Therefore, in February 2016, she sued the defendant for the cancellation of the race, but the defendants' club did not answer, so she asked for a claim.
The court rejected it on the ground that the defendant company had already reversed the decision on the number of points appealed after the points had been appealed.
The lawsuit called for her dog to be listed and ranked first.
As the court dismissed the primary claims in this part, it ruled on subordinate claims in the part concerning decisions on the number of points earned and the classification of the two dogs, including the involvement of a dog expert. It found that the respondent company correctly applied the evaluation criterion in accordance with the rules (the number of dogs registered and not actually present, for example, at an exhibition in Milan) and that it correctly took into account the evaluation from another exhibition. The court therefore rejected the claim and ordered the owner to pay the costs. Thus, the decision was final as there was no appeal.