Pigs have no rights to bigger pokes

5 January 2012 by

C- 310/60 Danske Svineproducenter  v Justitsministeriet – reference to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling on the Regulation laying down standards for the transportation by road of live vertebrates – read judgment 

Some people might disagree with the Appeal Court’s judgment that a life serving prisoner did not have a human right to more than thirty minutes’ daily exercise in the open air (see Matthew Finn’s post on this case). Of course a pig, being transported by road on a journey lasting at least eight hours, is allowed no open air at all. EU law provides that for road vehicles used for the transport of livestock, the internal height of the compartments intended for the animals must be sufficient for them to be able to “stand up in their natural position, having regard to their size and the intended journey, and that there must be adequate ventilation above them when they are in a naturally standing position, without hindering their natural movement”. That’s very good and high minded, one might think, given that the EU has not been known to be at the forefront of animal welfare legislation, particularly in relation to livestock being traded over member state boundaries. But the devil is in the detail…  Under the relevant rules, the loading density for pigs of around 100 kg should not exceed 235 kg/m². The CJEU has interepreted this as meaning that  “a Member State is entitled to introduce national rules under which, in the case of transport operations of over eight hours’ duration, the available space per animal must be at least 0.50 m2 per 100 kg of pig”. Further rules require that a 100kg pig must have 1 metre standing space, and one weighing more than twice that a generous 112 cm.

You need neither be a mathematician or an expert in porcine husbandry to grasp what that means in terms of space, ventilation and manoeveribility for a fully grown animal in transit.

In any event the EU law in question (Regulation No 1/2005) does not lay down, in precise terms, the height of the internal compartments. The CJEU has ruled that  Member States must be recognised as having “some discretion” in that respect. The fact that the European Union legislation on the protection of animals during transport is now set out in a regulation does not necessarily mean that all national measures for the application of that legislation are now prohibited.

As with many EU measures, there are two forces pulling in opposite directions; each Directive or Regulation has to reflect the EU’s underlying rationale as an internal market. But this objective lies flat against measures, such as animal welfare standards, which of necessity interfere with the free movement of goods across boundaries. In other words if country A has higher welfare standards than country B, the latter will not have its livestock accepted in the former, and the former will in all likelihood protest at sending its livestock to the latter. So when the EU speaks of animal welfare, it speaks with forked tongue, producing extremely contorted interpretations (such as the one under discussion) of what is precisely meant by the legislation dictating minimal welfare standards for the transport of live vertebrate animals which aims, at every juncture, to “eliminate technical barriers to trade in live animals and allowing market organisations to operate smoothly”. (See, on this point, David Hart QC’s post on the way pollution reduction initiatives, even of the EU Commission’s own making, are made to give way to free trade objectives. When it comes down to the wire, the environment has inferior status to cross border commerce).

Hence this declaration emerges, which can only be described as gobbledygook –

As regards the objectives of Regulation No 1/2005, it must be pointed out that, although it is true that the elimination of technical barriers to trade in live animals and the smooth operation of market organisations, referred to in recital 2 in the preamble to that regulation, form part of the purpose of that regulation…it is, however, apparent from… the preamble to that regulation that, like that directive, its main objective is the protection of animals during transport.

Furthermore, the principle of proportionality

requires that measures implemented by means of a provision must be appropriate for attaining the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it … That principle implies, inter alia, that, where there is European Union legislation which pursues a number of objectives, one of which is the main objective, a Member State which adopts a standard in the context of the discretion conferred on it by a provision of that legislation must comply with that main objective without hindering the attainment of the other objectives of that legislation. Therefore, in the light of those other objectives, such a national standard must be appropriate for ensuring that that main objective is attained and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it. means that  where there is EU legislation which pursues a number of objectives, one of which (animal welfare) is the main objective, a Member State which adopts a standard in the context of the discretion conferred on it by a provision of that legislation must comply with that main objective without hindering the attainment of the other objectives of that legislation.

What all these means in ordinary English is that  in the light of other objectives of the Regulation – the smooth operation of the market-  any national standard  must be appropriate for ensuring that the main objective (of animal welfare) is attained and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it. This means, in short, that a member state is not at liberty to introduce welfare measures that hinder the free movement of livestock across EU borders, or, as the CJEU says in terms:

numerical standards relating to the minimum internal height of compartments, such as those laid down by [the Danish legislation], must be proportionate to the objective of protecting animals during transport and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it.

The welfare question simply fizzles away because there is nothing in the Regulation to give it any definition; all that matters is the smooth operation of the market, since the CJEU stipulates that it is necessary to ascertain that any welfare standards adopted by member states

do not result in additional costs or technical difficulties which disadvantage either producers in the Member State which adopted them or producers from other Member States who wish to export their goods to or via that Member State

The outcome of this reference shows that, at least where welfare of animals is concerned, the EU is all talk and no substance. The regulations and directives are interpreted as laying down, not minimum, but maximum standards of welfare, beyond which Member States are not permitted to go.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related reading:

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: