Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:40:39.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ritual Slaughter Case: The Court of Justice and the Belgian Constitutional Court Put Animal Welfare First

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2022

Stéphanie Wattier
Stéphanie Wattier*
Affiliation:
Professor of Law, University of Namur, Belgium.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Notes
Information
European Constitutional Law Review , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 264 - 285
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Constitutional Law Review

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 F. Bergeaud-Blackler, ‘New Challenges for Islamic Ritual Slaughter: A European Perspective’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies (2007) p. 967.

2 G. van der Schyff, ‘Reviewing the Recent Ban on Ritual Slaughter in Flanders’, 1 Recht, Religie en Samenleving (2017) p. 5. In that sense, see among others: J.A. Rovinsky, ‘The Cutting Edge: The Debate over Regulation of Ritual Slaughter in the Western World’, 45(1) California Western International Law Journal (2014) p. 79 ff.; C.E. Haupt, ‘Free Exercise of Religion and Animal Protection: A Comparative Perspective on Ritual Slaughter’, 39 George Washington International Law Review (2007) p. 839 ff.; M. Valenta, ‘Pluralist Democracy or Scientistic Monocracy: Debating Ritual Slaughter’, 5(1) Erasmus Law Review (2012) p. 27; G. van der Schyff, ‘Ritual Slaughter and Religious Freedom in a Multilevel Europe: The Wider Importance of the Dutch Case’, 3(1) Oxford Journal of Law and Religion (2014) p. 76; P. Lerner and A.M. Rabello, ‘The Prohibition of Ritual Slaughtering (Kosher Shechita and Halal) and Freedom of Religion of Minorities’, 22(1) Journal of Law and Religion (2006) p. 1; C. Case, ‘Ritual Slaughter and Religious Freedom: Liga van Moskeen’, 56 Common Market Law Review (2019) p. 803 ff.

3 L.-L. Christians, ‘Bien-être animal et protection des minorités religieuses en Belgique. Le test de l’abattage rituel entre écarts régionaux et attente constitutionnelle’, Revue du droit des religions (2021) p. 82.

4 Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing.

5 For more details, see F. Bergeaud-Blackler (ed.), Les sens du Halal: Une norme dans un marché mondial (Paris, Ed. CNRS, 2015).

6 Bergeaud-Blackler, supra n. 1, p. 972-973. See also M. Hodkin, ‘When Ritual Slaughter Isn’t Kosher: An Examination of Shechita and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act’, 1 Journal of Animal Law (2005) p. 129 at p. 134 ff.

7 ECtHR 27 June 2000, Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v France, para 73.

8 See ECJ (GC) 29 May 2018, Case C-426/16, Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties; ECJ (GC) 26 February 2019, Case C-497/17, Œuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs; ECJ (GC) 17 December 2020, Case C-336/19, Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others v Vlaamse Regering.

9 For more details, see S. Wattier, ‘Les animaux’, in M. Uyttendaele and M. Verdussen (eds.), Dictionnaire de la Sixième Réforme de l’Etat (Bruxelles Larcier 2015) p. 41-45.

10 Case C-336/19, supra n. 8, 13.

11 S. Espallargas, De l’étourdissement des ruminants de boucherie par électronarcose. Conséquence pour l’animal et sa carcasse, Thesis, Ecole nationale vétérinaire de Nantes, 1983, p. 35.

12 Ibid.

13 Z. Amjad Aghwan and J. MacRegenstein, ‘Slaughter Practices of Different Faiths in Different Countries’, 61(3) Journal of Animal Science and Technology (2019) p. 111 at p. 121.

14 Ibid.

15 C. Sägesser, ‘Les débats autour de l’interdiction de l’abattage rituel’, 2385 Courrier hebdomadaire du Crisp (2018) p. 12.

16 According to scientific advice obtained by policy makers who, like Belgium, ban ritual slaughter without stunning: see Case C-336/19, supra n. 8, 75.

17 About the precise differences between kosher and halal meat, see J. Zurek et al., ‘Conventional versus Ritual Slaughter – Ethical Aspects and Meat Quality’, 9 Processes (2021) p. 1.

18 Sägesser, supra n. 15, p. 6.

19 In Belgium ‘the Constitutional Court is competent to review legislative acts. By legislative acts are meant both substantive and formal rules adopted by the federal parliament (statutes) and by the parliaments of the communities and regions (decrees and ordinances). All other regulations, such as Royal Decrees, decrees of governments of communities and regions, ministerial decrees, regulations and decrees of provinces and municipalities, and court decisions fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court’: see ⟨https://www.const-court.be/en/court/presentation/jurisdiction⟩ visited 2 July 2022.

20 K. Lenaerts, ‘Le dialogue entre la Cour constitutionnelle et la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne : angle d’approche et limites’, in A. Alan et al., Grondwettelijk Hof 1985-2015 – Cour constitutionnelle 1985-2015, Actes du colloque du 1er avril 2015 à l’occasion du trentième anniversaire du premier arrêt de la Cour (Die Keure 2016) p. 133 (free translation).

21 Case C-336/19, supra n. 8, 32.

22 Opinion of AG Hogan 10 September 2020, Case C-336/19, Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others v Vlaamse Regering, 77.

23 Ibid., 87.

24 Ibid., 87.

25 Case C-336/19, supra n. 8, 39-41.

26 Ibid., 43 (emphasis added).

27 Ibid., supra n. 8, 48.

28 Ibid., supra n. 8, 57, quoting ECtHR 18 February 1999, Buscarini and Others v Saint-Marino; 17 February 2011, Wasmuth v Germany and the case law cited.

29 Case C-336/19, supra n. 8, 67, quoting ECtHR 1 July 2014, SAS v France, §§ 129 and 131 and the case law cited.

30 Case C-336/19, supra n. 8, 75.

31 Ibid., supra n. 8, 90.

32 Case C-497/17, supra n. 8, 49.

33 Ibid., supra n. 8, 50.

34 Case C-336/19, supra n. 8, 69.

35 This is regularly recalled by the European Court of Human Rights: ‘the Court takes note of the wide variety of constitutional models governing relations between States and religious denominations in Europe. Having regard to the lack of a European consensus on this matter, it considers that the State enjoys a wider margin of appreciation in this sphere’: ECtHR 9 July 2013, Sindicatul ‘Păstorul cel Bun’ v Romania, § 171.

36 ECtHR (GC) 27 June 2000, Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v France, 2.

37 Ibid., 80-81.

38 Joint dissenting opinion of judges Bratza, Fischbach, Thomassen, Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Pantîru, Levits and Traja in ECtHR (GC), Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v France, 27 June 2000.

39 See J.-F. Flauss, ‘Abattage rituel et liberté de religion: le défi de la protection des minorités au sein des communautés religieuses’, note sous Cour eur. D.H., 27 June 2000, Rev. trim. D.H., p. 195-217; P. Rolland, ‘Liberté de religion et abattage rituel de la viande’, note sous Cour eur. D.H., 27 June in 2000, Cahiers du CREDHO, n° 7, 2000; H. Panken, Obs. sous Cour eur. D.H., 27 June 2000, R.W., 2002-2003, p. 397-398; J. Ringelheim, Diversité culturelle et droits de l’homme (Bruylant 2006) p. 317 ff; J.-P. Schouppe, ‘La dimension collective et institutionnelle de la liberté religieuse à la lumière de quelques arrêts récents de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme’, Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme (2005) p. 616.

40 Moreover, it should not be forgotten that the Council of Europe has a convention on the protection of animal welfare as well – dating from 10 May 1979 – which also provides for the principle of prior stunning of animals, while leaving states the option of providing for derogations from this principle in the context of slaughter (Art. 17).

41 J.-P. Marguénaud, ‘Le droit européen des droits de l’Homme et la protection des animaux’, Revue des Affaires Européennes/Law & European Affairs (2017) p. 86.

42 C.C., n° 117/2021, 30 September 2021 and C.C., n° 118/2021, 30 September 2021, available at ⟨https://www.const-court.be/en⟩ visited 2 July 2022.

43 As guaranteed ‘by Article 19 of the Constitution, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 18 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’ (C.C., n° 117/2021, 30 September 2021, B.14.1, C.C., n° 118/2021, 30 September 2021, B.14.1, free translation).

44 As guaranteed ‘by Articles 19, 21 and 27 of the Constitution, whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 9 and the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 18 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil Articles 10 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’ (C.C., n° 117/2021, 30 September 2021, B.29.1, C.C., n° 117/2021, 30 September, B.29.1 2021, free translation).

45 As guaranteed ‘by Articles 10, 11, 19, 21 and 23, paragraph 3, 1°, of the Constitution, whether or not read in conjunction with Articles II.3 and II.4 of the Code of Economic, Articles 8, 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 18, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 10, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 26, 28 to 37 and 56 to 62 TFEU’ (C.C., n° 117/2021, 30 September 2021, B.35, C.C., n° 117/2021, 30 September 2021, B.35, free translation).

46 As guaranteed by Arts. 10 and 11 of the Constitution and Articles 21 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (C.C., n° 117/2021, 30 September 2021, B.45.2, C.C., n° 117/2021, 30 September 2021, B.45.2).

47 ECJ 3 February 1977, Case 52/76, Benedetti.

48 For details of the effects of references for preliminary rulings, see C. Denizeau, ‘L’autorité des arrêts de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne’, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu (2014) p. 308.

49 See C. C., n° 136/2004, 22 July 2004; C.C., n° 201/2011, 22 December 2011; C.C. n° 31/2018, 15 March 2018; C.C., n° 58/2022, 21 April 2022.

50 This is why both judgments state that constitutional provisions are always ‘read in combination with or without’ a particular provision of an international convention.

51 L.-L. Christians, ‘Le financement des cultes en droit belge. Bilan et perspectives’, 1 Quaderni di Diritto e Politica Ecclesiastica (2006) p. 83; S. Wattier, ‘Inscrire le principe de laïcité dans la Constitution belge ? Quelques pistes pour une réflexion juridique’, Cahiers du CIRC (2020) p. 77. See also V. Vandermoere and J. Dujardin, Fabriques d’église (La Charte 1991) p. 1. See also C. Sägesser, ‘The Challenge of a Highly Secularized Yet Multiconfessional Society’, in Religion and Secularism in the European Union. State of Affairs and Current Debates (Peter Lang 2017) p. 22; H. Hasquin, Inscrire la laïcité dans la Constitution belge ? (Académie royale de Belgique 2016) p. 22.

52 Imposed by Art. 181(1) of the Belgian Constitution since 1831. About that funding, see also S. Wattier, Le financement public des cultes et des organisations philosophiques non-confessionnelles. Analyse de constitutionnalité et de conventionnalité (Bruylant 2016) p. 990.

53 Imposed by Art. 21(2) of the Belgian Constitution since 1831.

54 Relative au Conseil central des communautés philosophiques non confessionnelles de Belgique, aux délégués et aux établissements chargés de la gestion des intérêts matériels et financiers des communautés philosophiques non confessionnelles reconnues.

55 H. Dumont, ‘Que peut prescrire la Constitution belge à propos du caractère de l’Etat et des valeurs fondamentales de la société ?’ Commission de révision de la Constitution et de la réforme des institutions, Audition of 17 May 2016, p. 13; S. Wattier, ‘Inscrire le principe de laïcité dans la Constitution belge ? Quelques pistes pour une réflexion juridique’, Cahiers du Centre interdisciplinaire de recherches constitutionnelles (2020) p. 77.

56 French law of 9 December 1905 on the Separation of the Churches and State, Art. 2.

57 See law of 4 March 1870 on the temporal aspects of religions; law of 19 July 1974 recognising the administrations responsible for managing the temporal aspects of the Islamic religion; law of 17 April 1985 recognising the administrations responsible for managing the temporal aspects of the Orthodox religion.

58 See law of 21 June 2002 on the Central Council of Non-Denominational Philosophical Communities in Belgium, the delegates and establishments responsible for managing the material and financial interests of recognised non-denominational philosophical communities.

59 Projet de décret relatif au Code wallon du Bien-être des animaux, doc. parl., Parl. w., sess. ord. 2017-2018, n° 1150, p. 67 (free translation).

60 Case C-336/19, supra n. 8, 91.

61 Ibid., 93.

62 van der Schyff (2017), supra n. 2, p. 5 ff; M. El Berhoumi, ‘Abattage rituel : la liberté religieuse sacrifiée sur l’autel du bien-être animal ?’ (2017) ⟨ https://www.justice-en-ligne.be/Abattage-rituel-la-liberte⟩ visited 2 July 2022.

63 ECtHR 8 April 2014, Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and others v Hungary, § 76; ECtHR 7 July 2011, Bayatyan v Armenia, § 120; ECtHR 5 October 2006, Branche de Moscou de l’Armée du Salut v Russia, § 56 ; ECtHR 10 November 2005, Leyla Şahin v Turkey, § 107; ECtHR 13 December 2001, Eglise métropolitaine de Bessarabie et autres v Moldova, § 123; ECtHR 27 June 2000, Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v France, § 84.

64 El Berhoumi, supra n. 62. See also Christians, supra n. 3, p. 100 ff.

65 In that sense, see Sägesser, supra n. 15, p. 1.

66 As Damien Baldin explains, the 19th and 20th centuries were ‘dominated by two major social emotions that intertwined and followed each other over time: the horror of the blood that flowed during the necessary bleeding of the animal and the ever-increasing sensitivity to the suffering (real or supposed) of animals. Both will gradually determine the thresholds of what can or cannot be tolerated in terms of slaughter. These thresholds of tolerance, which are thresholds of sensitivity, are expressed in discourse and representations, and are reflected in practices and regulations. Their transformation into standards is the result of a long process, both social and political’: D. Baldin, ‘De l’horreur du sang à l’insoutenable souffrance animale’, Vingtième siècle. Revue d’histoire (2014) p. 52 (free translation).

67 Arts. 3.38 and 3.39 of the new book nr 3 of the Belgian Civil Code (free translation).

68 Christians, supra n. 3, p. 98.

69 Ibid.