On 13 February 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Belgium’s law preventing the slaughter of animals without stunning them first does not violate Article 9 (freedom of religion) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) (taken in conjunction with Article 9) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This ruling effectively permits bans on the production of kosher and halal meat in Belgium.
In 1986 Belgium passed an animal protection and welfare law which provides that in most circumstances vertebrates cannot slaughtered without either first being stunned or anesthetized; however, it made an exception for the religious slaughter of animals. In 2014 a piece of legislation made animal welfare, which was previously under the remit of the state, a regional matter. Two regions (the Flemish region and the Walloon region) then elected to end the long-standing exception carved out for the religious practice of ritualistic slaughter. Jewish and Muslim organisations and citizens/residents subsequently sought judicial review of the Flemish and Walloon decrees from the Constitutional Court who submitted preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), to see whether the ban violated the protection of religion granted by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Despite assertions from applicants that the new requirements made it extremely difficult or even impossible to slaughter meat in accordance with their respective religions, the CJEU’s judgment found that it was not against EU law for a member state to require “in the context of ritual slaughter, a reversible stunning procedure which could not result in the animal’s death”. The Constitutional Court consequently dismissed the application, and the Flemish and Walloon bans were upheld. Some of the applicants in the application to the Constitutional Court then took the case to the ECtHR.
On the facts, the ECtHR found that the applicants’ right to freedom of religion (Article 9) had been violated. However, the ECHR allows for the curtailment of religious freedom so long as it is ‘prescribed by law and is necessary in a democratic society.’ A list of available exception categories can be found in Article 9 and includes public safety, public order, health or morals, and the protection of the rights of others. The Court analysed whether animal welfare fell under one of the available exception categories and concluded that it did fall under the protection of public morals. The ECtHR held that the protection of public morals could not be understood to only protect human dignity. The Court then had to consider whether said protection was necessary in a democratic society. They looked at the legislative process, which had involved extensive consultation with religious groups and veterinarians and showed a concerted effort to balance freedom of religion with animal welfare, as well as the fact that the legislation in question allows for a different stunning process, in the context of religious animal slaughter, which allows for stunning without killing the animal. Due to these facts, the ECtHR concluded that the legislation fell within the margin of appreciation given to national authorities.
The ECtHR then found that the prohibition on discrimination (Article 14), read in conjunction with the freedom of religion, had not been violated. They rejected the argument lodged by the applicants that since hunters and fishermen were not required to stun animals before killing them, religious people were being discriminated against due to their religion. This was done on the basis that the animals used in religious slaughter are farmed animals and that the animals hunters kill are not. The ECtHR also rejected the applicants’ other argument that the ban was discriminatory against the rest of the population who did not have religious dietary requirements due to the legislation’s allowance for an alternate stunning process, meaning that the legislature had taken this into account appropriately.
The ECtHR ruling comes as a victory for animal rights activists but as a blow to members of the Muslim and Jewish faiths. Some animal rights activists/supporters have expressed their desire to see these types of laws adopted all over Europe. Ben Weyts, the Flemish minister responsible for animal welfare, stated “Now the door is open for a ban on ritual slaughter not only in Brussels but in the whole of Europe”. However, many of the Jewish and Muslim organisations in Belgium have voiced extreme dissatisfaction with the ruling. The president of the Belgian Federation of Jewish Organizations, Yohan Benizri, stating that, “This is the first time that the ECHR decides that protection of animal welfare is a matter of public morals that can trump the rights of minorities”. Now, those of the Jewish and Muslim faiths will have to source their meat from abroad.
Click Here for Press release in Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v. Belgium https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-7874911-10945982%22]}