[go: up one dir, main page]

IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ebg/heccah/1417.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Humanising Animal Slaughter Need Not Infringe Religious Freedom (Amicus Curiae Brief in C-336/19 Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie Van België and Others)

Author

Listed:
  • Alemanno, Alberto

    (HEC Paris)

  • de Sadeleer, Nicolas Michel

    (Saint-Louis University)

Abstract
"Stunning animals before slaughter and avoiding unnecessary suffering is mandatory throughout the EU. Although the EU Animal Slaughter Regulation allows for a ‘religious exception’ departing from such a practice, it also expressly enables Member States to adopt “national rules aimed at ensuring more extensive protection of animals at the time of killing”. That’s how Denmark, Sweden and Slovenia were able to, ban slaughter without stunning tout court. The Flemish region falls short of banning un-stunned slaughter, by prescribing instead reversible stunning. This method, by rendering the animal unconscious only for the time it takes to cut its throat, seems to respect the religious requirement of it remaining alive so the blood is pumped out by its still beating heart. According to well-established scientific evidence, this method is not only less traumatizing for the animal, and makes its handling easier for the butcher, but it is also accepted by a growing number of representatives of these religious communities. However, reversible stunning - as prescribed by the Flemish region - now faces a major legal challenge across Europe, having been challenged before the Belgian Constitutional Court, which has in turn referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the EU. This amicus curiae brief argues that a legislation – like the Flemish decree in question – prescribing an alternative stunning procedure for the slaughter carried out in the context of a religious rite is permissible under Union law, not least having regard to the guarantees of religious liberty and freedom contained in the Charter. It presents reversible stunning as a method that successfully balances the apparently competing values of religious freedom expressed in ritual slaughtering on the one hand and the concern for animal welfare on the other under current EU law. "

Suggested Citation

  • Alemanno, Alberto & de Sadeleer, Nicolas Michel, 2020. "Humanising Animal Slaughter Need Not Infringe Religious Freedom (Amicus Curiae Brief in C-336/19 Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie Van België and Others)," HEC Research Papers Series 1417, HEC Paris.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebg:heccah:1417
    DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3716450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3716450
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2139/ssrn.3716450?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Animal Welfare; Animal Law; Animal Rights; Religious Freedom; Halal; Kosher; Shechita; Public Health; European Union; Competence; Subsidiarity; Proportionality; Slaughter; Stunning;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K10 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - General (Constitutional Law)
    • K20 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - General
    • K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
    • K33 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - International Law

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebg:heccah:1417. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Antoine Haldemann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hecpafr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.