On Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) affirmed the legality of the Belgian decrees for the Flemish and Walloon regions, which mandate that all animals intended for human consumption must undergo proper stunning procedures prior to slaughter, as a measure to mitigate animal suffering and endorse humane slaughter practices.
Previously, this law had been affirmed by the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU. The ECHR’s recent ruling follows a legal challenge posed by several Belgian nationals and organizations representing Muslim and Jewish communities. These parties contended that the Flemish and Walloon rules infringe on their freedom of religion by prohibiting the ritualistic slaughter of conscious animals, which they claim contravenes their Articles 9 and 14 rights, as set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights. Notably, Article 9 safeguards the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, while Article 14 provides protection against discrimination.
Association with religion and societal norms became a focal point of the ruling. The court extended the existing definition of ‘protection of public morals’ to encompass human dignity in interpersonal relationships, individual environments, and particularly with respect to animal welfare.
In addition, the court validated the necessity of such interference in a democratic society, underscoring that both decrees were grounded in a scientific consensus that pre-slaughter stunning is the best method of minimizing animal suffering at the time of slaughter. The court further noted that both the Flemish and Walloon Parliaments concluded that there were no less drastic measures that could adequately achieve the same aim.
Interestingly, it was also established that these bans didn’t prohibit, and hence didn’t restrict, access to kosher and halal meats for Flemish and Walloon Jews and Muslims. This was because neither region prohibited the consumption of meat from other areas or countries where stunning prior to slaughter is not legally mandated.
The court also ruled that the claimants’ Article 14 rights against discrimination were not violated, as the claimants’ circumstances were found to be not comparably placed with those of hunters and fishermen.
This judgment by the ECHR marks a first in terms of the court’s stance on this matter. It raises the possibility of future legislative changes favoring animal rights linked with religious freedom rights in the EU.