Revolution or Evolution? Dutch Ritual Slaughter and Animal Welfare as ‘Public Morals’ through the ECtHR Lens

Introduction: Renewed Legislative Momentum

On 19 June 2025, the Dutch Get together for the Animals submitted a brand new legislative proposal aimed toward reshaping the authorized relationship between the state, faith and animals (see 36 769, no. 3). Constructing on an earlier initiative in 2018 (see 34 908, no. 5), the proposal introduces a ‘complete (algehele) obligation’ for pre-slaughter gorgeous,together with instances of formality slaughter. Not like the 2018 proposal, ritual slaughter wouldn’t be prohibited as such: it stays permitted, offered that the animal is shocked beforehand utilizing a ‘reversible and non-lethal methodology’. Underneath present Dutch laws, ritual slaughter remains to be exempted from any obligation of pre-slaughter gorgeous.

The legislative proposal falls inside the scope of Articles 9 ECHR and 10 CFREU (freedom of faith). The duty for pre-slaughter gorgeous interferes with the precise spiritual prescriptions of Jewish and Islamic slaughter rites, which primarily require that the animal dies on account of the neck incision (exsanguination). Regardless that there are totally different theological interpretations, exsanguination stays a requirement for a considerable a part of these spiritual communities. Consequently, the Dutch legislative proposal constitutes an interference with the (relative) freedom to manifest one’s faith.

On 20 October 2025, the Advisory Division of the Council of State concluded that the proposal is suitable with Article 9 ECHR (see no. W11.25.00148/IV). This non-binding advice should be learn in mild of decisive European case regulation. In 2020, the European Courtroom of Justice (ECJ, in Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België e.a. and Others) and, in 2024, the European Courtroom of Human Rights (ECtHR, in the identical case, Government of the Muslims of Belgium and Others v. Belgium) dominated that the liberty to manifest one’s faith can’t be seen as a barrier to a ‘normal’ (algemene) obligation for pre-slaughter gorgeous, as included in Flemish and Walloon Legal guidelines (the so-called ‘Decrees’ (decreten) within the Flemish and Walloon Areas, Belgium). These Decrees allow ritual slaughter provided that the animal is shocked beforehand utilizing a reversible and non-lethal methodology.

A semantic distinction should be made between a ‘complete’ and a ‘normal’ obligation. A complete obligation suggests an absolute and unconditional rule, whereas a normal obligation permits for restricted exceptions, as recognised below EU regulation (see Articles 1(1) and three Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 on the safety of animals on the time of killing). Nonetheless, if the Dutch proposal, stipulating a complete obligation, is topic to particular modalities for ritual slaughter (i.e., allowing reversible, non-lethal pre-slaughter gorgeous), it seems able to withstanding scrutiny below European case regulation, at the least within the view of the Advisory Division of the Council of State.

This weblog examines whether or not the Dutch 2025 proposal complies with Article 9 ECHR, particularly in mild of the ruling in Government of the Muslims of Belgium and Others v. Belgium (ECtHR). Whereas the first focus stays on the ECHR (i.e., conformity of the Dutch 2025 proposal with the Conference), we additionally study EU regulation and confer with the sooner ECJ ruling in Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others to offer a extra complete authorized perspective. The weblog publish scrutinizes the legitimacy take a look at below the ECHR by analyzing the classification of animal welfare as ‘public morals’ (thought-about as a legit intention). Subsequently, the evaluation turns to a vital reassessment of the proportionality take a look at, whether or not the reasoning of the ECtHR holds true for all classes of animals prevalent within the Netherlands. Past this doctrinal evaluation, the weblog additionally situates the ECtHR’s reasoning inside a broader normative perspective on the place of animals in a human rights framework.

The Authorized Framework on Ritual Slaughter

The fitting to manifest one’s freedom of faith – which encompasses ritual slaughter as a non secular ceremony – as set out in Article 10 CFREU, corresponds to the suitable assured below Article 9 ECHR, pursuant to Article 52(3) CFREU. These provisions share the identical which means and scope. A restriction on the liberty to manifest one’s faith is justifiable below Articles 9(2) ECHR and 10 CFREU, learn along with Article 52(1) CFREU. In sum: a restriction should be prescribed by regulation; be obligatory in a democratic society; pursue a legit intention and preserve a proportionate relationship to that intention; and respect the essence of the suitable (see no. W11.25.00148/IV, notice 16).

On the one hand, Article 13 TFEU stipulates that animals are ‘sentient beings’, establishing that the safety of animal welfare is an goal of normal curiosity recognised by the European Union (see additionally, Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België e.a. and Others, para 63, citing ECJ case regulation since 2008). Alternatively, Article 13 requires respect for spiritual rites as enshrined in Article 10 CFREU. This twin strategy can also be mirrored in Regulation No. 1099/2009 on the safety of animals on the time of killing. Article 4(1) thereof establishes pre-slaughter gorgeous as the overall rule, whereas Article 4(4) permits an specific exception for ritual slaughter. Crucially, Article 26(2) of the Regulation permits Member States to undertake stricter nationwide guidelines for animal welfare safety. If adopted, the 2025 legislative proposal would explicitly train this competence below Article 26(2) to offer the next degree of animal safety, an possibility the Netherlands has not but invoked. Presently, unstunned ritual slaughter stays permitted within the Netherlands below the exception offered by Article 4(4), topic to sure situations. Since 2018, Dutch laws requires that the animal lose consciousness inside 40 seconds after the neck incision; in any other case, (post-cut) gorgeous should be utilized instantly (see the ‘Keepers of Animals Decree’ (‘Besluit houders van dieren’) of 2017 and the ‘Covenant on Un-stunned Slaughter’ (‘Convenant onbedwelmd slachten’) of 2012, as amended in 2017). Against this, Flanders and Wallonia adopted stricter guidelines in 2019 (with Flanders additional amending them in 2024); these have been upheld by each the ECJ and the ECtHR, within the instances talked about above.

In our view, it isn’t stunning that the ECtHR’s judgment in Government of the Muslims of Belgium and Others v. Belgium is in conformity with the ECJ’s earlier ruling, avoiding a diametrical opposition between the 2 European authorized orders. That stated, we don’t wish to say such congruence between the 2 courts was written within the stars. Totally different traits between the ECJ and the ECtHR might be recognized which affect their jurisprudential technique (Guiraudon, p. 1094). For instance, guarding the unity of EU regulation isn’t a job entrusted to the ECtHR. Its jurisprudence on human rights is – in precept – based mostly solely on minimal requirements laid down within the ECHR. This explains the marginal normal of overview, as utilized by ECtHR, and give attention to a selected nationwide regulation (De Hert, p. 18). The extra particular level right here is that ‘two European truths’ are potential, which isn’t insignificant given the salience of debates on spiritual freedom (Zoethout and Devriendt, p. 160-161). But, the ECtHR has repeatedly made clear that it’s moderately tame in going towards State pursuits – that is additionally a matter of sustaining credibility and legitimacy within the eyes of Member States – so one might anticipate that the ECtHR case Government of the Muslims of Belgium and Others v. Belgium wouldn’t be diametrically against what the ECJ held. Certainly, in Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België e.a. and Others, the ECJ took detailed account of the necessities of Article 9 ECHR, acknowledging the large margin of appreciation afforded to Member States below Article 9 ECHR (para 67). Once more, we should resist the notion that the ECtHR ‘merely’ echoes the ECJ. Whereas the ECtHR could draw sure ‘constructing blocks’ from the ECJ case regulation (because the ECtHR does, see para 116 of the judgment), the precise ‘home’ (its judgment) should relaxation on its ownassessment to listen to allegations of violations of the ECHR.

Legitimacy: Animal Welfare as ‘Public Morals’

In Government of the Muslims of Belgium and Others v. Belgium, the ECtHR dominated for the primary time that the safety of animal welfare falls inside the notion of ‘public morals’ below Article 9(2) ECHR (para 102). This improvement displays evolving scientific insights and ethical attitudes.

Scientific analysis constantly exhibits that unstunned slaughter causes vital animal struggling. Research by, inter alia, Vanthemsche (p. 19) and the (Belgian) Council on Animal Welfare Council (p. 94) reveal that, significantly in cattle, the interval between the neck incision and lack of consciousness could final a number of minutes, throughout which the animal experiences ache, stress, concern, and many others. (see additionally: the European Meals Security Authority(EFSA), p. 1-2). These findings have prompted a reassessment of human ethical obligations in direction of animals. Modern moral views more and more reject pointless animal struggling solely on the idea of non secular rites as such.

In opposition to this background, the ECtHR’s reasoning, because it accepts scientific analysis (paras 117 and 118), is placing. The ECHR doesn’t apply on to animals, nor does it comprise specific provisions on animal welfare. In distinction, in Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België e.a , the ECJ was capable of depend on Article 13 TFEU, which establishes animal welfare as an goal of normal curiosity (see above). The ECtHR held that the safety of animals as “sentient beings” constitutes an ethical worth shared by society and subsequently varieties a part of “public morality” below Article 9(2) ECHR (paras 99 and 102). By means of this route, animal welfare enters the human rights framework not directly. This strategy confirms the ECHR’s character as a ‘dwelling instrument’, as noticed by the ECtHR (para 98).

Critics may view the enlargement of exception grounds like ‘public morals’ as opposite to the Conference’s raison d’être to guard particular person rights. We agree that ‘public morals’ mustn’t merely replicate a majority opinion; moderately, we argue that the shift in moral pondering relating to animal welfare represents an autonomous moral worth. The core of this evolution is recognising what the animal is: a sentient being. It represented a shift in moral pondering relating to people. As argued in a earlier weblog, this shift signifies that the safety of animals has entered the area of ethical values. In 1789, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) introduced this subject in a forceful and inescapable approach: ‘The query isn’t, Can they cause? Nor, Can they discuss?, however Can they endure?’ (Burns and Hart, p. 283).

Within the mild of the ECtHR’s case regulation, the 2025 proposal pursues a legit intention below Article 9(2) ECHR, specifically the safety of animal welfare as a component of ‘public morals’.

Proportionality and the Least Restrictive Measure

The proportionality take a look at is central to figuring out whether or not an interference with the liberty to manifest one’s faith is justifiable. On the coronary heart of this evaluation is the connection and proportionality between the interference and the legit intention pursued. Given the absence of a European consensus, Member States get pleasure from a large margin of appreciation (Sajo and Uitz, p. 293). The case Government of the Muslims of Belgiumputs growing emphasis on the standard of the legislative course of. On this regard, the ECtHR connected appreciable weight to in depth parliamentary debate (together with dialogue with spiritual communities) and authorized procedures (para 109). The laws was framed as a (democratic) alternative of society (para 106), as additionally stipulated by the Courtroom within the case S.A.S. v. France (para 153). Consequently, the Courtroom appears to train judicial restraint (para 106).

Central to the ECtHR evaluation is {that a} measure should not limit the liberty to manifest one’s faith greater than obligatory to realize the legit intention pursued. The ECtHR held that, as a result of reversible, non-lethal gorgeous minimises animal struggling (the animal is shocked) whereas preserving the core of the spiritual ceremony (loss of life by exsanguination, not by gorgeous), it constitutes the least restrictive measure (“much less intrusive or radical means”) that achieves the legit intention (para 118). Even when spiritual teams could regard this methodology as incompatible or not absolutely suitable with spiritual rites, we argue that this angle doesn’t exclude the tactic from the proportionality evaluation (see additionally the Belgian Constitutional Courtroom, 2021, B.22.4).

This reasoning is prime for the Dutch 2025 legislative proposal. A blanket ban on ritual slaughter (like recommended within the earlier 2018 proposal) would doubtless be discovered disproportionate by the ECtHR. A tailor-made obligation centered on reversible, non-lethal gorgeous can fulfill Article 9 ECHR. Nonetheless, two vital points come up.

First, as famous within the concurring opinion of Judges Koskelo (joined by Choose Kūris) and Yüksel, the ECtHR seems to maneuver away from a ‘classical’ balancing of pursuits (the place the state has a margin of appreciation, nevertheless it should be verified whether or not boundaries have been crossed) in direction of a stricter ‘least restrictive measure’ evaluation. Secondly, and extra importantly, reversible, non-lethal gorgeous isn’t but virtually possible for grownup cattle prevalent within the Netherlands. Whereas scientifically validated strategies exist for small ruminants (corresponding to calves, sheep, and goats), there may be presently no virtually possible and scientifically validated methodology of reversible, non-lethal gorgeous for grownup cattle that ensures the ceremony. Particularly, no methodology ensures that loss of life outcomes from the incision (and, subsequent exsanguination) moderately than the gorgeous itself.

Consequently, imposing a right away obligation of reversible, non-lethal gorgeous would, in apply, quantity to a de facto ban on ritual slaughter for grownup cattle within the Netherlands. For individuals who want to carry out ritual slaughter regionally, no viable alternate options would stay. This additionally helps reframing the proposal as a ‘normal’ moderately than a ‘complete’ obligation, thereby avoiding an absolute formulation. Thus, for grownup cattle, the proportionality take a look at fails below the present 2025 proposal, because of the lack of a virtually possible methodology for reversible, non-lethal gorgeous. Refraining from speculating on the tempo of scientific progress, we advocate for a short lived exception by way of post-cut gorgeous (topic to periodic analysis and potential extension) that is still legitimate till reversible, non-lethal gorgeous turns into virtually possible for grownup cattle prevalent within the Netherlands.

Evolution or Revolution? The standing of the animal in 2026 below the ECHR

Past the doctrinal evaluation, the ECtHR’s recognition of animal welfare as ‘public morals’ invitations a broader reflection on the authorized standing of animals inside a human rights framework.

From an evolutionary perspective, the ECtHR’s reasoning in Government of the Muslims of Belgium and Others v. Belgium suits inside the established dwelling devices doctrine that animals stay authorized objects below the ECHR. They can not provoke proceedings below the ECHR. The ECHR stays designated as a human rights treaty: European Conference on Human Rights. Safety thus doesn’t stream by way of the animal itself, however by way of the human morality (‘public morals’). Thus, the ECHR stays anthropocentric (versus ecocentric, the place the animal is central).

From a revolutionary perspective, defending the animal by way of human morality (or ‘public morals’) may also be deemed revolutionary. The ethical obligation of people in direction of animals is thereby activated. Filling in ‘public morals’ with animal welfare implies that the struggling of a (non-human) animal is enough grounds to limit a classical (although relative) human basic proper (freedom to manifest one’s faith). Human freedom not ends solely the place one other human’s freedom begins, but additionally the place the welfare of an animal is at stake. This doesn’t imply that people should give in to non-humans, and that the liberty to manifest one’s faith should yield to animal welfare. In spite of everything, ritual slaughter isn’t banned as such and remains to be permitted below the above-mentioned rules. However – within the Flemish and Walloon areas and within the 2025 Dutch proposal – animals should be shocked earlier than being slaughtered (e.g., reversible, non-lethal pre-slaughter gorgeous), whether or not or not the slaughter is carried out for spiritual causes.

Concluding Reflection

The inclusion of animal welfare inside ‘public morals’ signifies a ‘revolutionary evolution’; thus, a synthesis of an evolution and a revolution. It’s evolutionary by becoming the dwelling devices doctrine of the ECtHR, the animal nonetheless being thought-about an object moderately than a topic below the ECHR. But, it’s revolutionary because it justifies proscribing classical human rights (e.g., freedom to manifest one’s faith) for non-human pursuits. Crucially, the liberty to manifest one’s faith doesn’t yield fully: ritual slaughter as such stays permitted, albeit topic to an obligation for reversible, non-lethal pre-slaughter gorgeous.

Sien Devriendt is Assistant Professor in Constitutional Regulation on the Division of Constitutional Regulation and Jurisprudence, Open Universiteit of the Netherlands.  Her analysis pursuits embody constitutional and human rights regulation, with specific consideration to freedom of faith, academic rights, and the suitable to privateness.

Mirjam van Schaik is Affiliate Professor in Constitutional Regulation on the Division of Constitutional Regulation and Jurisprudence, Open Universiteit of the Netherlands. Her work is located within the fields of constitutional regulation and authorized concept.

Carla Zoethout is Professor in Constitutional Regulation on the Division of Constitutional Regulation and Jurisprudence, Open Universiteit of the Netherlands. Her analysis focuses on comparative constitutional regulation, human rights (particularly the liberty of thought, conscience and faith, in a secular perspective).