Articles for tag: EU Charterhealth careTierrechteTierschutz

Vet Bills and the EU Charter

Over the past decade, concerns about rising veterinary costs and their impact on animal welfare have sparked growing debate across Europe and North America. In the EU, veterinary pricing is largely unregulated, leading to significant variation in costs and transparency across Member States – prompting scrutiny from competition authorities in countries like the UK, the Netherlands, and Sweden. If Charter rights, particularly Article 37 on sustainability, are to carry real weight in relation to animals, the current state of the veterinary market in Europe warrants closer examination.

The “Best Available Science”

Two recent fisheries disputes reveal that the “best available science” standard is neither singular nor straightforward. Instead, science emerges as contested terrain, shaped by power, uncertainty, and competing truths. These cases could have important implications for the future application of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and its growing relevance for biodiversity and animal protection.

Rights for Non-Humans in EU Law

The recognition of animals and nature as potential rights holders has long been a controversial proposition within European legal discourse. However, we believe that the EU legal order is more hospitable to such recognition than one might expect. In a recent article, we argued for a rights-based reinterpretation of EU animal welfare and environmental protection laws. EU constitutional and secondary laws can be construed as entailing legal rights for non-human entities – even if these rights are not explicit the texts. We consider how the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and other EU legal acts may support a post-anthropocentric vision of Union law.

Animals and the EU Charter

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights remains silent on animal rights, even as a growing number of constitutions worldwide now explicitly protect animals. While the EU already recognises animals as sentient beings under Article 13 TFEU, this recognition has yet to translate into meaningful constitutional safeguards. Embedding animal welfare into the Charter would align the Union with global developments and help move its integration project beyond an overly anthropocentric model.

A Wolf’s Right to the Surface of the Earth

The European Union recently changed the legal status of the wolf from “strictly protected” to “protected”. In this contribution, I advocate a different response to the problem that wolves prey on animals kept by humans: the further development of the European ecological network called Natura 2000. The premise of my argument, based on animal rights theory and Kant’s philosophy of law, is that wolves have the right to be on Earth. In the past, humans have tried to eradicate wolves, which is a clear violation of this right. I argue that this historical injustice generates the duty to restore the habitats and natural infrastructure used by wolves.

A “Me too” Movement in the Equestrian Arena?

“Never look a gift horse in the mouth” is a well-known saying, yet the proverb might recently have gained new meaning.  Just before the recent World Cup finals in dressage and show jumping in Riyad, there were reports about horses with blue tongues in the dressage sport. These non-human athletes did not get enough air, presumably due to overly tight bridles and excessive pressure applied by their riders. Currently, animal protection is not sufficiently harmonized and enforced in the EU, but there are reasons to be hopeful. The EU should take the lead and require member States to implement comprehensive animal protection systems.

Hehrer Zweck mit hohen Hürden

Landwirtschaftsminister Cem Özdemir fordert eine eigene Abgabe auf tierische Erzeugnisse wie Fleisch, Milch und Eier, um daraus Hilfen für den tierfreundlichen Umbau der Nutztierhaltung zu finanzieren. Mit dieser sogenannten Tierwohlabgabe greift er die Empfehlungen der Borchert-Kommission auf, die bereits seine Vorgängerin Julia Klöckner in einer umfangreichen Machbarkeitsstudie auf ihre Umsetzbarkeit untersuchen ließ. Für die Einführung einer Tierwohlabgabe sind erhebliche verfassungs- und unionsrechtliche Hürden zu überwinden. Während eine Sondergabe kaum mit der diesbezüglichen Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zu vereinbaren sein dürfte, setzt das unionsrechtliche Verbot diskriminierender Abgaben einer zweckgebundenen Steuer Grenzen.

Anbindehaltung – Keine rechtliche Grauzone, sondern illegale Routine

Im März 2023 legte Greenpeace ein Rechtsgutachten vor, das die Anbindehaltung von Rindern als tierschutzwidrige Praxis qualifizierte. Kurz darauf veröffentlichte die European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) eine Empfehlung für ein einheitliches Verbot der Anbindehaltung in der EU. Und in einem Bericht des BR vom 30.5.2023 war von einem „internen Referentenentwurf“ des Bundesministeriums für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL) zu lesen, der unter anderem ein teilweises Verbot der Anbindehaltung vorsehe. In den deutschen Medien entbrannte daraufhin eine hitzige Diskussion. Der Bayerische Bauernverband bezeichnete ein Verbot als „ dramatische Zäsur für die Rinderhaltung“. Um zu erkennen, dass Tiere leiden, wenn beinahe alle ihre natürlichen Verhaltensweisen unterdrückt werden, sind keine besonderen tiermedizinischen Kenntnisse erforderlich. Rechtliche Bedenken gegen diese Haltungsform drängen sich daher auf. Die nähere Betrachtung zeigt: Die dauernde Anbindehaltung ist nicht nur (tierschutz)rechtlich unzulässig, sondern regelmäßig strafbar.

Why a United States Supreme Court Case About Pig Farming Matters So Much

The United States Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could have major implications for animal welfare, public health, the environment, and the balance between state and federal power. The case is called National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, and the Court heard oral arguments on October 11, 2022. The case concerns whether a state has the right to ban the sale of products made in ways that harm animals and public health.

Standing for Piglets

In a non-acceptance order of 14 May 2021, the German Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept a constitutional complaint submitted by the German Branch of the animal rights organization PETA for adjudication. The Constitutional Court missed an opportunity to open the constitution to non-anthropocentric approaches. A constitutional amendment might be necessary to explicitly terminate the long-standing mediatization of the natural environment with its negative consequences for the effectiveness of environmental law and protection.