1/4 One of the dogs that has been taken (photo: NVWA).
Finally, the infamous dog breeder Jan Paridaans (69) Ut Eersel and his ex-wife Stephanie Dul (50) were in court on Tuesday. After many checks and canceled lawsuits, the case could finally be dealt with in terms of content. In a crowded courtroom in Den Bosch, Jan Paridaans heard twenty months demanded, of which ten conditional and for Stephanie Dul fifteen months, ten of which are conditional.
In short, the two dog breeders are accused of having remembered hundreds of dogs in their breeding Kwispel Enzo. During checks it was found that it was a dirty gang there and that many dogs were wrong.
Paridan was fierce and clear in court. He is not such a talker, but more of the hard one -liners: “Everything at the company was Pico Bello in order”, “Everything was perfect, but the NVWA inspectors wrote something else” and “Every day everything was cleaned.”
It was clear how Jan Paridaans views the business two years after the closure of his dog breeding on the Hoge Aardweg in Eersel. He does not find blame and the NVWA and the media get all fault from him.
“So much attention. My case had to be broken.”
“My company had to break. When do you come with the hammer, I asked the people of the NVWA.” As evidence for his positions, Paridaans pointed to the packed courtroom. “So much attention. My case had to be broken.”
The list of shortcomings that the NVWA noted, however, is long: dirty lofts, full of urine and poop, too many dogs per loft, too few dry and clean berths, no or dirty drinking water, crusts and wounds, contaminated and clashed coats, skin and eye disorders, tests with broken food boxes and more. More.
And with every re -control, things were not made in order and new shortcomings were found. Perseverance were also distributed. In December 2022, for the first time dozens of dogs were taken that were seriously ready and more than four hundred in January. Eventually the company was closed in March 2023 by order of the NVWA and the last 160 dogs were seized.
In this episode of Crime explained, we list everything:
Waiting for privacy settings …
Stephanie and Jan therefore blamed the media and the NVWA. Due to all the negative publicity, no more puppies were sold and the lofts became increasingly full. And when people were allowed to go on holiday again after the corona period, Paridan’s almost no dog sold anymore. “First I sold 130 to 140 puppies a month. Later only fifteen or so. I left hundreds of dogs in a few months.”
“It became increasingly difficult to keep everything clean and tidy.”
At the height or perhaps low, there were seven hundred dogs in their breeding in Eersel. “And then it is increasingly difficult to keep everything clean and tidy,” said the two. And it was also increasingly difficult because of all the attention to get staff.
It took a long time for Jan Paridaans and his ex-wife Stephanie Dul finally to court. Animal welfare neutrisation House of Animals put Kwispel Enzo in the spotlight in 2022 with an undercover report on YouTube. Encouraged by House of Animals, the NVWA then started working with breeding. In the meantime, Paridan has a total ban to keep animals.
Waiting for privacy settings …
The public prosecutor did not listen to Paridan and Dul. He sees that hundreds of animals have been remembered. He charged the two heavily that they neglected the dogs. On all sides, an attempt was made to adjust the company, but they did not want to listen, the officer concluded. He also charged them heavily that enormous costs had to be made to catch the dogs elsewhere.
A community service is not an issue in such serious violations, he thought. He therefore demanded a prison sentence for Jan Paridaans and Stephanie Dul. For Paridan’s twenty months, of which ten conditional and for dul fifteen months, ten of which are conditional. As a special condition, he also demanded a ban on keeping animals. The Paridanian company would have to pay a fine of 60,000 euros as far as the officer is concerned.
In their last word, Paridan and Dul recognized to have made mistakes. Their lawyers argued to only impose conditional imprisonment.
The decision in this case is on 8 April.