A French court has ordered a family to give up the wild fox they adopted over a year ago. A judge fined them €300 for "keeping a non-domestic animal without authorization."

 

"/> A French court has ordered a family to give up the wild fox they adopted over a year ago. A judge fined them €300 for "keeping a non-domestic animal without authorization."

 

" />
SHARE
COPY LINK

ANIMALS

Court fines family over adopted fox

A French court has ordered a family to give up the wild fox they adopted over a year ago. A judge fined them €300 for "keeping a non-domestic animal without authorization."

 

This is not the animal in the story but it is an attractive fox.
Christopher Hall

The court in Bergerac, in the Dordogne region in south-western France, told the Delanes family that Zouzou, the young fox which has lived in a pen in the family’s backyard for over a year, would have to be surrendered to authorities.

“This is an absurd decision,” said Anna-Paule Rodrigues, one of Zouzou’s adoptive parents. “We have no idea where they are going to take him.”

Her companion, Didier Delanes, found the fox cub in April 2010 along the side of the road lying under its dead mother, which had been run over by a car. He took the animal home and the family raised it as a pet.

The fox eats dog food, drinks water out of a dish and family members can approach it and even pet it.

“Zouzou acts like a dog,” Rodrigues told Europe 1 radio.

But in France, raising a wild animal without special authorization is against the law. In March, the National Office of Hunting and Wild Animals found out about Zouzou and began legal proceedings against its keepers.

On Tuesday afternoon, a judge ruled that the fox must be confiscated and slapped a €300 fine on the family.

However, the penalty might be considered a light one. Under French law, the court could have imposed a one-year jail sentence and a fine of €15,000.

The presiding judge, Jean-Luc Gadaud, had harsh words for the family and the media, which he said had “made much more of the story than it deserved.” He admitted to having received death threats associated with the case.

 

Zouzou’s adopted family has promised to appeal, although the confiscation order will remain in effect.

 

“We are very disappointed,” Rodrigues said after the ruling. “It’s like we’re criminals and have done something wrong, although we didn’t do anything of the kind.”

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

BUSINESS

French court hands Amazon €90,000-per-day fine over contracts

French authorities on Wednesday slapped a €90,000-per-day fine on e-commerce giant Amazon until it removes abusive clauses in its contracts with businesses using its platform to sell their goods.

French court hands Amazon €90,000-per-day fine over contracts

The anti-fraud Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes (DGCCRF) service said the online sales giant’s contracts with third-party sellers who use its Amazon.fr website contain “unbalanced” clauses.

“The company Amazon Services Europe did not comply completely with an injunction it was served and it is now subject to a fine of €90,000 per day of delay” in applying the changes, the DGCCRF said in a statement.

It also urged the platform to conform with European rules on equity and transparency for firms using online platforms.

Amazon said the order would harm consumers.

“The changes imposed by the DGCCRF will stop us from effectively protecting consumers and permit bad actors to set excessive prices or spam our clients with commercial offers,” the e-commerce giant said in a statement.

“We will comply with the DGCCRF’s decision but we absolutely do not understand it and we are challenging it in court,” responded the e-commerce giant in a statement.

Amazon said the clauses that the DGCCRF has ordered removed had, for example “prevented the appearance of exorbitant prices for mask and hydroalcoholic gel during the pandemic”.

In 2019, Amazon was fined €4 million for “manifestly unbalanced” contract clauses with third-party sellers on its site in a case brought by the DGCCRF.

SHOW COMMENTS