题名

Rebalancing Animal Welfare and Religious Freedom: A Comparative Analysis of EU Cases

并列篇名

重新平衡動物福利和宗教自由：歐盟法院判決的比較分析

作者

Chiu, Yen-Lin Agnes(邱彥琳)

关键词

European Union (EU) ； Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ； animal welfare ； freedom of religion ； free movement of goods ； consumer protection ； public health ； religious rites ； slaughter ； stunning ； 歐洲聯盟 ； 歐盟法院 ； 動物福利 ； 宗教自由 ； 貨物自由流動 ； 消費者保護 ； 公共衛生 ； 宗教儀式 ； 屠宰 ； 致昏

期刊名称

輔仁法學

卷期/出版年月

63期（2022 / 06 / 01）

页次

113 - 185

内容语文

英文;繁體中文
中文摘要

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recently deliberated a series of consecutive cases concerning the protection of animal welfare in the context of religious rites. The preliminary rulings-all delivered by Grand Chambers according to Article 267 TFEU-in 2018 affirmed the validity of an EU wide regulation requiring religious rites without stunning be carried out in approved slaughterhouses, in 2019 prohibited the issuance of organic certifications for meat products derived from religious butchering without pre-stunning, and in 2020 upheld a regional decree prescribing reversible stunning for religious slaughter. The fact that the latter two decisions departed from the Opinion of the Advocate General accentuated the highly controversial nature and intensified ongoing debates about the justification and significance of these milestone judgments. In the light of such extraordinary developments, this article ponders the arguments underlying the verdicts as well as their far-reaching practical implications. Moreover, the analysis reflects on the legitimate interests that were at stake for the parties, namely freedom of religion, free movement of goods, animal welfare, consumer protection and public health. Based on a comparative approach that takes into account not only the current status but also the historic evolution of EU laws, the study above all unveils a spectrum of changing parameters that have transformed the concept of animal welfare, thus warranting a rebalancing of competing interests within the legal framework. As a result, this paper provides valuable insights and recommendations to resolve conflicting values, aims, principles and policies of the European Union. The discussion enhances a better understanding of fundamental relations between the Union and its Member States, notably in view of allocated powers and competences implanted in the EU Treaties. By highlighting the overriding impact factor of time from a multidimensional perspective, the author contributes to a deeper awareness of the dynamic nature of the EU.
英文摘要

歐盟法院（CJEU）最近審議了一系列關於宗教儀式與保護動物福利的案件。這些都是由大法庭根據歐洲聯盟運作條約第267條（Article 267 TFEU）作出的判決在2018年確認了一項歐盟法規的效力，該法規要求未經致昏的宗教儀式只能在被批准的屠宰場進行。另外，歐盟法院在2019年禁止為來自宗教屠宰無事先致昏的肉類產品頒發有機認證，並在2020年維持了一項區域法令，指示宗教屠宰應實施可逆致昏。後兩個判決背離了佐審官的意見，這一事實突出了分歧的高度爭議性，又加劇了對這些里程碑判例的辯論。鑑於這些特殊的發展，本文探討了判決背後的論點及其深遠的實際影響。除此之外，這片文章深思了所涉及各方當事人的合法利益，即宗教自由、貨物自由流動、動物福利、消費者保護和公共衛生。基於比較方法不僅面向歐盟法律的現狀還考慮到歐盟法律的歷史演變，該研究尤其揭露了一些轉換動物福利概念的變化參數，從而必需在歐盟框架內重新平衡利益競爭。它的結果，本分析提供了寶貴的見識和建議，以解決歐盟相互衝突的價值觀、目標、原則和政策。而且討論增強了對歐盟與其成員國之間基本關係的理解，特別也注意到植入歐盟條約中的權力分配。作者從多維角度強調時間的重大影響因素，因此有助於更深入地察覺歐盟的動態本質。
主题分类 社會科學 > 法律學
参考文献
  1. Taiwan News, Opinion: CJEU ruling to uphold ban on kosher, halal slaughter a disastrous decision, at https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4081547 (18 Dec. 2020, last visited 06/10/2021).
  2. CJEU 29 May 2018, Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen, VZW and Others v. Vlaams Gewest, C-426/16.
  3. Opinion of Advocate General Hogan in Case C-336/19 Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België e.a. and Others v. Vlaamse Regering. CJEU 17 Dec. 2020, EU:C:2020:1031, Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België e.a. and Others v. Vlaamse Regering, C-336/19.
  4. CJEU 12 July 2001, H. Jippes, Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren and Afdeling Assen en omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, C-189/01.
  5. CJEU 23 April 2015, Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v. Stadt Kempten, C-424/13.
  6. CJEU 26 Feb. 2019, Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) v. Ministre de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation and Others, C-497/17.
  7. Opinion of Advocate General Wahl in Case C-426/16 Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen, VZW and Others v. Vlaams Gewest.
  8. CJEU 17 January 2008, Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH and Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, joined cases C-37/06 and C-58/06.
  9. Taiwan News, EU states can require stunning before ritual slaughter, at https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4080572 (17 Dec. 2020, last visited 06/10/2021).
  10. Opinion of Advocate General Wahl in Case C-497/17 Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) v. Ministre de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation and Others.
  11. Abdullah, Fouad Ali Abdullah,Borilova, Gabriela,Steinhauserova, Iva(2019).Halal Criteria Versus Conventional Slaughter Technology.animals,9,530.
  12. Alemanno, Alberto,de Sadeleer, Nicolas.HEC Paris Research PaperHEC Paris Research Paper,未出版
  13. Animal Equality, EU States Can Now Mandate Pre-Slaughter Stunning of Animals Without Exception, at https://animalequality.org/news/eurpoean-union-states-stunning-animals-before-slaughter/ (17 Dec. 2020, last visited 06/10/2021).
  14. Association of Veterinary Abolitionists of Bullfighting and Animal Abuse (AVATMA), Killing or slaughter of animals without prior stunning: Exceptions to European legislation on animal welfare, at https://avatmaorgblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/report-slaughter-of-animals-without-prior-stunning.pdf (2017, last visited 07/11/2021).
  15. Blackman, Josh, EU Court of Justice Upholds Restriction on Kosher and Halal Slaughter, at https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/18/eu-court-of-justice-upholds-restriction-on-kosher-and-halal-slaughter/ (18 Dec. 2020, last visited 06/10/2021).
  16. Broom, Donald M.(2017).Animal Welfare in the EU.
  17. Chiu,Yen-Lin Agnes(2018).European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients v. Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills: A Global Message Concerning Animal Tested Cosmetic Products.European Law Review,43,934.
  18. Conconi, Paola,Voon, Tania(2016).EC–Seal Products: The Tension between Public Morals and International Trade Agreements.World Trade Review,15,211.
  19. Council, Conclusions on an EU-wide animal welfare label, at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/pressreleases/2020/12/15/council-supports-eu-wide-animal-welfare-label/ (7 Dec. 2020, last visited 06/10/2021).
  20. Court of Justice of the European Union, Presentation, at https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7024/en/#jurisprudences (last visited 10/28/2021).
  21. Craig, Paul(2010).The Lisbon Treaty.
  22. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare=AHAW(2020).Welfare of cattle at slaughter.EFSA Journal,18,96.
  23. EU Reporter, Animal welfare victory: CJEU ruling confirms member states' right to introduce mandatory pre-slaughter stunning, at https://www.eureporter.co/environment/2020/12/17/animal-welfare-victory-cjeu-ruling-confirms-member-states-right-to-introduce-mandatory-pre-slaughter-stunning (17 Dec. 2020, last visited 06/10/2021).
  24. Eurogroup for Animals, 9 out of 10 Europeans want mandatory stunning before slaughter and call on the EU to preserve the right of Member States to protect animal welfare, at https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/9-out-10-europeans-want-mandatory-stunning-slaughter-and-call-eu-preserve-right-member-states (8 Oct. 2020, last visited 06/10/2021).
  25. Eurogroup for Animals, Animal Welfare, Trade and Sustainable Development Goals, at https://issuu.com/eurogroupforanimals/docs/e4a-sdg_and_aw_report_03-2019-screen (17 Jan. 2020, last visited 07/11/2021).
  26. European Commission, Evaluation of the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015, at https://ec.europa.eu/food/system/files/2021-04/aw_eu_strategy_swd_04042021_en.pdf (31 March 2021, last visited 07/11/2021).
  27. European Commission, Answer given by Ms Kyriakides, at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-000392-ASW_EN.pdf (12 March 2021, last visited 06/10/2021).
  28. European Commission, A European Green Deal, at https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (last visited 10/29/021).
  29. European Commission, The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final, at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52019DC0640 (11 Dec. 2019, last visited 10/29/2021).
  30. European Commission, A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system, COM/2020/381 final, at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0381 (20 May 2020, last visited 06/10/2021).
  31. European Commission, Final report of an audit carried out in Belgium from 24 November to 3 December 2014 in order to evaluate the animal welfare controls in place at slaughter and during related operations, at https://ec.europa.eu/food/auditsanalysis/act_getPDF.cfm?PDF_ID=11804 (14 July 2015, last visited 10/31/2021).
  32. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Animal welfare, at https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/animal-welfare (last visited 06/10/2021).
  33. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights=FRA(2019).Young Jewish Europeans: perceptions and experiences of antisemitism.
  34. Fischer, Johan,Lever, John(2021).Religion, Regulation, Consumption. Globalising Kosher and Halal Markets.
  35. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Guidelines for Humane Handling, Transport and Slaughter of Livestock, at http://www.fao.org/sustainable-food-valuechains/library/details/en/c/266014/ (2001, last visited 06/10/2021).
  36. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC), Study on information to consumers on the stunning of animals, at https://humanism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/EU-fci-stunning_report.pdf (2015, last visited 06/10/2021).
  37. Global Animal Law GAL Association, Animal Welfare Legislation at European Level, at https://www.globalanimallaw.org/database/europe.html (last visited 06/10/2021).
  38. Graham, David(2004).,未出版
  39. Graham, David(2018).,Institute for Jewish Policy Research.
  40. Granet, Elijah Zachary(2021)."As I Have Commanded Thee": Flemish Decrees and CJEU Jurisprudence Put Religious Slaughter Under the Knife.European Law Review,46,380.
  41. Halal Food Authority (HFA), Definition of Halal, at https://halalfoodauthority.net/WhatisHalal.html (last visited 06/10/2021).
  42. Howard, Erica(2019).Ritual slaughter and religious freedom: Liga van Moskeeën.Common Market Law Review,56,803.
  43. Humane Slaughter Association, Religious Slaughter, at https://www.hsa.org.uk/downloads/related-items/religious-slaughter.pdf (amended July 2014, last visited 06/10/2021).
  44. Institut national de l'origine et de la qualité (INAO), The National Institute of origin and quality - Institut national de l'origine et de la qualité (INAO), https://www.inao.gouv.fr/eng/The-National-Institute-of-origin-and-quality-Institut-national-de-l-origine-et-de-la-qualite-INAO (last visited 10/23/2021).
  45. Korsgaard, Christine M.(2018).The Claims of Animals and the Needs of Strangers: Two Cases of Imperfect Right.The Journal of Practical Ethics,6,19.
  46. Lewin, Nathan, Poor advocacy: Kosher slaughter was badly defended, https://www.jns.org/opinion/poor-advocacy-kosher-slaughter-was-badly-defended/ (21 Dec. 2020, last visited 06/10/2021)
  47. Library of Congress, Legal Restrictions on Religious Slaughter in Europe, Legal Reports https://www.loc.gov/law/help/religious-slaughter/europe.php (updated 2019, last visited 06/10/2021).
  48. Nakanishi, Yumiko(2021).Case C-336/19 Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België: Animal welfare and freedom of religion.Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
  49. OABA, "Organic halal" case: the slaughter of animals without stunning is incompatible with the BIO label, at https://oaba.fr/bio-halal-abattage-des-animaux-sans-etourdissement-incompatible-avec-le-bio/ (published 23 July 2019, last visited 10/23/2021).
  50. OIE World Organisation for Animal Health, Protecting One Health, at https://www.oie.int/en/what-we-do/global-initiatives/one-health/ (last visited 06/10/2021).
  51. Parlament, Fachinfos zu aktuellen Parlamentsthemen, Welche Staatsziele gibt es in Österreich und was können sie bewirken?, at https://fachinfos.parlament.gv.at/politikfelder/parlament-und-demokratie/welche-staatsziele-gibt-es-in-oesterreich-und-was-koennen-sie-bewirken/ (14 May 2019, last visited 10/29/2021).
  52. Peters, Anne(2019).Religious Slaughter and Animal Welfare Revisited.The Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law,5,269.
  53. Peters, Anne(2020).Toward International Animal Rights.Studies in Global Animal Law
  54. Peters, Anne (ed.)(2020).Studies in Global Animal Law.
  55. Pew Research Center, Jewish Americans in 2020, at https://www.pewforum.org/2021/05/11/jewish-americans-in-2020/ (2021, last visited 06/10/2021).
  56. Reynolds, Stephanie(2016).Explaining the constitutional drivers behind a perceived judicial preference for free movement over fundamental rights.Common Market Law Review,53,643.
  57. Schwarze, Jürgen,Becker, Ulrich,Hatje, Armin,Schoo, Johann(2018).EU-Kommentar.
  58. Sowery, Katy(2018).Sentient beings and tradable products: The curious constitutional status of animals under Union law.Common Market Law Review,55,55.
  59. Stilt, Kristen(2020).Trading in Sacrifice.Studies in Global Animal Law
  60. Streinz, Rudolf(2018).EUV/AEUV.
  61. Udin, Zack, Factsheet: Ritual Slaughter, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, at https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2020%20Legislation%20Factsheet%20-%20Ritual%20slaughter.pdf (2020, last visited 06/10/2021).
  62. van der Schyff, Gerhard(2014).Ritual slaughter and religious freedom in a multilevel Europe: The wider importance of the Dutch case.Oxford Journal of Law and Religion,3,76.
  63. Veterinary Policy Research Foundation (VPRF), Non-stun Slaughter: Key facts, at https://vprf.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/non-stun-slaughter-vprf-fact-file-feb-2018.pdf (updated Feb. 2018, last visited 06/10/2021).
  64. Von der Groeben, Hans,Schwarze, Jürgen,Hatje, Armin(2015).Europäisches Unionsrecht.
  65. Wills, Joe(2020).The Legal Regulation of Non stun Slaughter: Balancing Religious Freedom, Non discrimination and Animal Welfare.Liverpool Law Review,41,145.
  66. Witte, John,Pin, Andrea(2021).Faith in Strasbourg and Luxembourg? The Fresh Rise of Religious Freedom Litigation in the Pan-European Courts.Emory L.J.,70,587.
  67. WTO, Principles of the trading system, at https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm (last visited 06/10/2021).
  68. Zoethout, Carla M.(2013).Ritual Slaughter and the Freedom of Religion: Some Reflections on a Stunning Matter.Human Rights Quarterly,35,651.
  69. 林明鏘(2020).臺灣動物法.台北:新學林.
  70. 動物保護立法運動聯盟，＜民間版動物保護修法草案（摘要版）＞，2021 年 10 月，載於：https://www.east.org.tw/action/8559（最後瀏覽日 2021.12.1）。
  71. 鐘雅儒(2021)。天主教輔仁大財經法律研究所。
print cancel