A very important ruling
With judgment no. 1520/2022 of 15.09.22, the Court of Udine (single judge Dr. Daniele Faleschini Barnaba, Public Prosecutor Dr. Luca Spinazzè) acquitted AM (defendants the lawyers Adriano Garziera and Lino Roetta of the Court of Vicenza), defendant of the accused of having "illegally taken possession of poultry fauna, birds and numerous nestlings, species belonging to the thrush family, in order to make a profit for themselves or for others and in any case destined to become decoy birds for hunting use…. With the aggravating circumstances of having committed the crime with fraudulent means and on assets exposed by necessity to the public faith …. birdlife, unavailable state property, proceeds from the crime of aggravated theft", since "the fact does not exist". Specifically, the birds were 43 specimens of redwing (Turdus iliacus), all marked with identification rings of an authorized breeding site in Montespertoli, found on 1 June 2020 during a search by the Investigative Unit of the Forest Carabinieri of Pistoia within the farm in the province of Udine, duly authorized for amateur purposes and of which the defendant himself is the owner.
Unavailable state property
Basically, the defendant was accused of having illegally taken the 43 redwing nestlings from the wild or, alternatively, the accusation of purchasing or receiving them with the knowledge of their illegal origin, since they were wildlife unavailable state property. The witness DB, owner of the authorized breeding site in Montespertoli, of origin of the nestlings, as well as Dr. Giuseppe Micali, as defense technical consultant. In particular, DB declared that it had entrusted the defendant with the 43 subjects for weaning, by virtue of a regular contract (found during the search), since in the Montespertoli breeding DB itself, without collaborators, was unable to dispense the adequate and frequent care required by the numerous chicks. DB had also delivered surplus identification rings to AM, in case some of those on the nestlings' legs had deteriorated and therefore required replacement.
Catch in the wild
The expert opinion rendered by the technical consultant of the defense was decisive, whose observations and arguments made during the deposition were fully accepted by the Judge, according to which the redwings "very improbably could have come from catches in the wild, being a species that usually reproduces in the wild in the countries of Central and Northern Europe, where the redwing migrates in the spring after having wintered in southern Europe and in other Mediterranean territories; the breeding season takes place from May to July; the age of the chicks seized by the defendant, equal to 20-30 days, made their birth in the wild unlikely, considering that the couple needs 5-7 days for the construction of the nest, that the deposition and brooding lasts about two weeks and that the chicks cannot be taken away from their parents in the first days of life; moreover, the time required for transport to Italy and the difficulties of keeping such a young bird life alive during long journeys must be considered.” Ultimately, the circumstantial elements against the defendant remained without certain proof, not supported by regulatory data (in relation to the alleged ban on the sale of birds between farmers) and not supported by reliable scientific evidence. Nor was evidence acquired of the alteration or tampering of the birds' identification rings. AM was thus acquitted of the crimes attributed to him because the fact does not exist, pursuant to art. 530, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (source: ANUU).