STRASBOURG, February 13, 2024 — In a landmark decision today, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Belgium’s ban on slaughtering animals without prior stunning does not infringe on religious freedoms. This judgment comes after a joint application from Jewish and Muslim communities in Belgium, challenging the ban as a violation of their religious rights.
The ECHR evaluated complaints from both the Muslim and Jewish residents of Belgium’s Walloon and Flemish regions. The case was brought forth by a coalition that included seven Islamic civil society organizations, three Muslim citizens, and ten Jewish citizens of Belgium. They argued that mandatory stunning before animal slaughter contradicted their religious practices and infringed on their rights to freedom of religion.
In a unanimous decision, the court’s Second Section found that the legislation did not violate Article 9 (freedom of religion) or Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court also tackled the issue of whether the protection of animal welfare could be considered a legitimate aim under Article 9, marking the first time this question has been addressed in such a context.
Belgian laws on animal slaughter have evolved over time. Historically, a 1986 law on animal protection and welfare allowed for exceptions to stunning in cases of religious slaughter. However, reforms in 2014 shifted animal welfare to regional jurisdiction, leading to the Flemish and Walloon regions adopting decrees in 2017 and 2018, respectively, that removed exemptions for ritual slaughter without stunning.
The Brussels Parliament’s refusal to amend the 1986 law in June 2022 left the exemption for ritual slaughter without stunning intact in the Brussels-Capitale Region.
In explaining its decision, the ECHR acknowledged the legislative measures as an interference with religious freedom but emphasized the necessity of evaluating whether protecting animal welfare serves a legitimate purpose. The court highlighted that the concept of “morals” evolves and recognized the protection of animal welfare as an ethical value of increasing importance in modern democratic societies.
The decrees, according to the court, were the result of comprehensive consultations involving religious groups, veterinarians, and animal protection agencies, illustrating a balanced effort to respect religious freedom while promoting animal welfare.
The court pointed out that the scientific consensus supports stunning before slaughter as the most humane method, reducing animal suffering. It also noted the legislative bodies’ efforts to find a balanced solution by allowing reversible stunning in religious slaughters, ensuring it does not result in the animal’s death.
Addressing concerns about the difficulty of obtaining religiously compliant meat, the court observed that neither the Flemish nor Walloon regions had banned the import or consumption of meat from areas where stunning is not required, and applicants did not prove that access to such meat had been significantly hindered.
By upholding the decrees that mandate stunning before slaughter, including for religious rites, the ECHR concluded that Belgian authorities had not exceeded their discretionary powers, affirming the balance between animal welfare and religious freedom.
Source: Ensar Ugur, TR724.com
