European Union

Summary:

This directive reflects the EU's concern for a need to establish common minimum standards for the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing in order to ensure rational development of production and to facilitate the completion of the internal market in animals and animal products. The directive also states that at the time of slaughter or killing animals should be spared any avoidable pain or suffering.

Summary:

The European Union has established a framework to protect animals used for experimental or scientific purposes by ensuring that they are adequately cared for and that no unnecessary pain or suffering is inflicted.

Summary:

This EU council decision approves the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes on behalf of the European Economic Community. It has the aim of protecting animals kept for farming purposes, particularly in modem intensive production systems.

Summary:

Jippes, an ECJ case from 2001, involved a legal dispute over the hoof and mouth pandemic ravaging Europe at the time.  To stem spread of the disease, the EU passed a community directive banning the use of preventative vaccinations and mandating compulsory slaughter. The plaintiff—or “applicant,” as plaintiffs are referred to in Europe—owned a variety of farm animals, and, loathe to kill them,  argued that European law embraced a general principle that animals were shielded from physical pain and suffering. Such a principle, the applicant argued, could only be overridden when absolutely necessary; and the compulsory slaughter directive was in direct conflict with this principle. The ECJ, however, rejected the applicant’s argument, holding that the Animal Welfare Protocol of 1997 did not delineate any new important animal-friendly principles in European law, but merely codified old ones. 

Summary:

A detailed analysis of the differences and similarities between US, European Union, Swiss, Norwegian and German animal cruelty laws. The theories behind these differences are explored. Finally, possible and definite future reforms shed light on upcoming animal cruelty law.

Summary:

After a flurry of legislative activity in the 1990s, EU animal welfare initiatives have stagnated of late. This article seeks to explain why, by pointing to factors such as changing EU membership, implementation costs, and fallout from extremist attacks. After providing an overview of recent animal welfare legislation, the paper discusses the slowdown and its causes, and then ventures some educated guesses about what can be expected on the European animal welfare front in coming years.

Summary:

Animal welfare has become a recent issue in the policy of the European Union. As a positive step in recognizing the unnecessary suffering of animals, the Cosmetics Directive will be the focus in the first part of this article. The amendments to the Cosmetics Directive to prohibit the testing of animals in cosmetics culminated in the case of France v. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Similar measures were adopted in California, which will be discussed in the second half the article.

Summary:

European Union (EU) law contains a range of helpful provisions designed to protect farm animals on-farm, during transport and at slaughter. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union recognises animals as “sentient beings” and requires the EU and its Member States, when formulating and implementing their policies in certain key areas to pay “full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”. EU law has prohibited some of the worst aspects of industrial livestock production: veal crates have been prohibited from 2007, barren battery cages for egg-laying hens from 2012 and sow stalls (gestation crates) are prohibited (except during the first four weeks of pregnancy) from 2013. This article describes and evaluates the above legislation and indicates the scientific research on which it is based. Nonetheless, EU law has to date only gone part way; substantial and far-reaching fresh legislation is needed before the EU can claim to have a body of law which properly ends the suffering inherent in industrial farming and legislates for a positive state of well-being for farm animals.