CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 février 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s55E50B0E { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s61B76474 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9.5pt } .sDFD688D7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9.5pt } .s2B964A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:3pt } .s4009AD63 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .sD819B587 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE56532DA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:57.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .sC0983CF { width:6.75pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s62B2E987 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:70.95pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD95767A9 { width:33.22pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s436D3C2F { width:146.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sF28C8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s14C5EDA0 { font-family:Arial; color:#374151 } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } SECOND SECTION CASE OF EXECUTIEF VAN DE MOSLIMS VAN BELGIË AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM (Applications nos. 16760/22 and 10 others – see appended list)   JUDGMENT   Art 9 • Freedom of religion • Manifest religion or belief • Decrees in Flemish and Walloon regions prohibiting slaughter of animals without prior stunning, while providing for reversible stunning in ritual slaughter • Art   9 applicable • Differences with case of Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v.   France   [GC] • Unlike EU law, Convention does not seek to protect animal welfare as such • Protection of animal welfare linked for first time to legitimate aim of protecting “public morals” • Lack of clear consensus within member States but gradual evolution in favour of greater protection of animal welfare • Margin of appreciation not narrow • Requirements of Art   9 taken into account in legislatures’ decisions and two-tier judicial review by CJEU and Constitutional Court • Proportionate alternative to prior stunning obligation sought by law-makers • Margin of appreciation not overstepped • Measure proportionate to aim pursued Art 14 (+ Art   9) • No discrimination • Applicants’ situation as practising Jews and Muslims not analogous or relevantly similar to that of hunters and anglers • Practising Jewish and Muslim applicants not treated differently from individuals not adhering to religious dietary precepts • Among applicants, situation of practising Jews not relevantly different from that of practising Muslims based solely on difference in dietary precepts   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court . STRASBOURG 13   February 2024 FINAL   24/06/2024   This judgment became final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v.   Belgium, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen, President ,   Egidijus Kūris,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Saadet Yüksel,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Frédéric Krenc,   Diana Sârcu, judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the applications (nos.   16760/22 and 10 other applications) against the Kingdom of Belgium lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by thirteen Belgian nationals and seven non ‑ governmental organisations registered in that State (“the applicants” – see appended table), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Belgian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles   9 and 14 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of application no.   17314/22; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the Government of Denmark and the association Global Action in the Interest of Animals VZW (“GAIA”), who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 16   January 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applications concerned a ban on the ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning in the Flemish and Walloon regions of Belgium which the applicants alleged was in breach of Articles   9 and 14 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants are organisations purporting to represent Belgium’s Muslim communities, as well as national and local religious authorities from Belgium’s Turkish and Moroccan Muslim communities, Belgian nationals of Muslim faith and Belgian nationals of Jewish faith residing in Belgium. The applicants and their representatives are listed in the Appendix . 3 .     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   I.   Niedlispacher, of the Federal Justice Department. I.         SUBJECT MATTER OF THE IMPUGNED DECREES 4.     A Decree of the Flemish Region of 7   July 2017, amending the Law of 14   August 1986 on the protection and welfare of animals, regarding permitted methods of slaughtering animals (see paragraphs   16-18 below), and a Decree of the Walloon Region of 4   October 2018 on the Walloon Code of Animal Welfare (see paragraphs   19-20 below) were adopted. In two similarly worded provisions, the decrees repealed a previously existing exception permitting the ritual slaughter of animals without stunning (see paragraph   15 below). II.       ACTION FOR ANNULMENT BEFORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 5.     Some of the applicants, along with other legal and natural persons, brought an action for annulment of the Flemish and Walloon decrees before the Constitutional Court. III.     REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING FROM THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 6 .     In an interlocutory judgment of 4   April 2019 in the case concerning the Flemish decree, the Constitutional Court submitted a number of preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in particular as to whether slaughter without stunning was compatible with European Union (EU)   law, having regard to freedom of religion, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”; see paragraph   36 below). 7 .     In its judgment of 17   December 2020 in Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others (C-336/19, EU:C:2020:1031), given contrary to the opinion of Advocate General Hogan (EU:C:2020:695), the Grand Chamber of the CJEU found that point   (c) of the first subparagraph of Article   26(2) of Council Regulation (EC)   1099/2009 of 24   September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (see paragraph   38 below), read in the light of Article   13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article   10(1) of the Charter (see paragraph   36 below), was to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a member State which required, in the context of ritual slaughter, a reversible stunning procedure which could not result in the animal’s death. The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows (references omitted): “48.     ... (i) ...[P]oint   (c) of the first subparagraph of Article   26(2) of Regulation No   1099/2009 does not fail to have regard to the freedom to manifest religion, as guaranteed in Article   10(1) of the Charter, and   (ii) ... in the context of the power afforded Member States, under that provision of Regulation No   1099/2009, to adopt additional rules designed to ensure greater protection for animals than provided for by that regulation, those States may, inter alia, impose an obligation to stun animals prior to killing which also applies in the case of slaughter prescribed by religious rites, subject, however, to respecting the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter. ... 51.     [Such] national legislation ... falls within the scope of the freedom to manifest religion, guaranteed in Article   10(1) of the Charter. ... 53.     As the applicants in the main proceedings submit, by imposing the obligation to stun the animal beforehand during ritual slaughter, while stipulating that that stunning should be reversible and not cause the animal’s death, the decree at issue in the main proceedings ... appears to be incompatible with certain Jewish and Islamic religious precepts. ... 55.     Consequently, the decree at issue in the main proceedings entails a limitation on the exercise of the right of Jewish and Muslim believers to the freedom to manifest their religion, as guaranteed in Article   10(1) of the Charter. ... 61.     ... [N]ational legislation which lays down the obligation to stun the animal beforehand during ritual slaughter, while stipulating that that stunning should be reversible and not cause the animal’s death, respects the essence of Article   10 of the Charter, since, according to the information in the documents before the Court, set out in paragraph   54 above, the interference resulting from such legislation is limited to one aspect of the specific ritual act of slaughter, and that act of slaughter is not, by contrast, prohibited as such. ... 63.     It is clear both from the case-law of the Court, and from Article   13 TFEU that the protection of animal welfare is an objective of general interest recognised by the European Union. ... 66.     ... [I]t should be noted that national legislation which lays down the obligation to stun the animal beforehand during ritual slaughter, while stipulating that that stunning should be reversible and not cause the animal’s death, is appropriate for achieving the objective of promoting animal welfare referred to in paragraph   62 above. 67.     It is apparent from the case-law of European Court of Human Rights that where matters of general policy, such as the determination of relations between the State and religions, are at stake, on which opinions within a democratic society may reasonably differ widely, the role of the domestic policy-maker should be given special weight. The State should thus, in principle, be afforded, within the scope of Article   9 of the [European Convention on Human Rights – ECHR], a wide margin of appreciation in deciding whether, and to what extent, a limitation of the right to manifest religion or beliefs is ‘necessary’. The margin of appreciation thus afforded to the Member States in the absence of a consensus at EU level must, however, go hand in hand with a European supervision consisting in determining whether the measures taken at national level were justified in principle and proportionate. 68.     As may be seen from recitals   18 and   57 of Regulation No   1099/2009, it is precisely the lack of consensus among Member States as to how they perceive ritual slaughter which led to the adoption of Articles   4 and   26 of that regulation. ... 71.     Consequently, by referring to the existence of different ‘national perceptions’ in relation to animals and to the need to leave a ‘certain flexibility’ or ‘a certain degree of subsidiarity’ to Member States, the EU legislature intended to preserve the specific social context of each Member State in that respect and to give each Member State a broad discretion in the context of the need to reconcile Article   13 TFEU with Article   10 of the Charter, for the purposes of striking a fair balance between, on the one hand, the protection of the welfare of animals when they are killed and, on the other, respect for the freedom to manifest religion. 72.     As regards, more specifically, the necessity of the interference with the freedom to manifest religion resulting from the decree at issue in the main proceedings, it is apparent from the scientific opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), cited in recital 6 of Regulation No 1099/2009, that a scientific consensus has emerged that prior stunning is the optimal means of reducing the animal’s suffering at the time of killing. ... 74.     It follows that the Flemish legislature was entitled, without exceeding the discretion referred to in paragraph   67 above, to consider that the limitations placed by the decree at issue in the main proceedings on freedom to manifest religion, by requiring prior stunning which is reversible and cannot result in the animal’s death, meet the condition of necessity. 75.     As regards, lastly, whether the interference with the freedom to manifest religion resulting from the decree at issue in the main proceedings is proportionate, first, as is apparent from the preparatory documents for that decree ..., the Flemish legislature relied on scientific research which demonstrated that the fear that stunning would adversely affect bleeding out is unfounded. In addition, those same preparatory documents show that electronarcosis is a non-lethal, reversible method of stunning, with the result that if the animal’s throat is cut immediately after stunning, its death will be solely due to bleeding. 76.     Furthermore, by requiring, in the context of ritual slaughter, prior stunning which is reversible and cannot result in the animal’s death, the Flemish legislature also intended to be guided by recital   2 of Regulation No   1099/2009 – in the light of which Article   4 of that regulation, taken as a whole, must be read – which states, in essence, that, in order to spare animals avoidable pain, distress or suffering during the killing process, preference should be given to the most up-to-date method of killing that is authorised, where significant scientific progress has made it possible to reduce the animal’s suffering at the moment of killing. 77.     Secondly, like the ECHR, the Charter is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and of the ideas prevailing in democratic States today, with the result that regard must be had to changes in values and ideas, both in terms of society and legislation, in the Member States. Animal welfare, as a value to which contemporary democratic societies have attached increasing importance for a number of years, may, in the light of changes in society, be taken into account to a greater extent in the context of ritual slaughter and thus help to justify the proportionality of legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings. 78.     Thirdly, in accordance with the rule laid down in Article   26(4) of Regulation No   1099/2009, the decree at issue in the main proceedings neither prohibits nor impedes the putting into circulation, within the territory in which it applies, of products of animal origin derived from animals which have undergone ritual slaughter, without prior stunning, in another Member State. The Commission indeed stated, in that regard, in its written observations submitted to the Court, that the majority of Member States authorise, pursuant to Article   4(4) of that regulation, slaughter without prior stunning. Moreover, as the Flemish and Walloon Governments have, in essence, argued, national legislation such as the decree at issue in the main proceedings neither prohibits nor hinders the putting into circulation of products of animal origin derived from animals which have undergone ritual slaughter, where those products originate in a non-Member State. 79.     Thus, in an evolving societal and legislative context, which is characterised, as pointed out in paragraph   77 above, by an increasing awareness of the issue of animal welfare, the Flemish legislature was entitled to adopt, following a wide-ranging debate organised at the level of the Flemish Region, the decree at issue in the main proceedings, without exceeding the discretion which EU law confers on Member States as regards the need to reconcile Article   10(1) of the Charter with Article 13 TFEU. 80.     Consequently, it must be found that the measures contained in the decree at issue in the main proceedings allow a fair balance to be struck between the importance attached to animal welfare and the freedom of Jewish and Muslim believers to manifest their religion and are, therefore, proportionate.” 8 .     Regarding the preliminary question as to the validity of point   (c) of the first subparagraph of Article   26(2) of Regulation   1099/2009 in the light of the principles of equality, non-discrimination and cultural, religious and linguistic diversity, as guaranteed by Articles   20, 21 and   22 of the Charter respectively, the CJEU held, in particular, as follows: “91.     ... [I]f the concepts of ‘hunting’ and ‘recreational fishing’ are not to be rendered meaningless, it cannot be argued that those activities are capable of being carried out in respect of animals which have been stunned beforehand. As stated in recital   14 of Regulation No   1099/2009, those activities take place in a context where conditions of killing are very different from those employed for farmed animals. 92.     In those circumstances, the EU legislature also did not infringe the principle of non-discrimination in excluding from the scope of that regulation the non-comparable situations of killing referred to in the preceding paragraph. 93.     ... [T]he EU legislature made it abundantly clear that scientific opinions on farmed fish were insufficient and that there was also a need for further economic evaluation in that field, which justified the separate treatment of farmed fish. ” IV.    JUDGMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 9 .     Following that judgment of the CJEU (see paragraphs   7-8 above), the Constitutional Court dismissed the actions for annulment of the impugned decree in two judgments of 30   September 2021 (nos.   117/2021 and 118/2021). It took the view, in particular, that the applicants’ arguments alleging an infringement of freedom of religion and of the principle of equality and non-discrimination were ill-founded. 10 .     The most relevant parts of judgment no.   117/2021 regarding the Flemish decree (with analogous passages also included in judgment no.   118/2021 regarding the Walloon decree) read as follows   (references omitted): “B.17.3. Special methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites, together with respect for religious dietary precepts and the ability to obtain meat from animals slaughtered in accordance with such precepts, must be regarded as manifestations of a religious belief and fall within the scope of freedom of religion... ... B.18.2. According to the applicants, ritual slaughter obeys specific religious precepts requiring, in essence, that Jewish and Islamic believers consume only meat from animals slaughtered without prior stunning, so as to ensure that these animals are not subjected to any process that might damage them or result in their death before slaughter, and that they bleed to death. Although ritual slaughter is understood in different ways within both the Jewish and Islamic religious communities, as is apparent in particular from the documents in the case file, stunning before slaughter is not permitted in at least in some of these communities. The Court will take this circumstance as a starting point for its examination, without seeking to ascertain the propriety or legitimacy of this act in the light of any Jewish or Islamic dogma, or its precise significance within these religions . B.18.3. Consequently, the decree in question must be regarded as restricting the right of certain believers to manifest a religious belief. ... B.19.1. The obligation to stun animals prior to slaughter constitutes a restriction on freedom of religion, provided for by decree, whereby the legislature has sought to promote animal welfare. It can be seen from the preparatory documents ... that the legislature considered slaughter without stunning to cause the animal avoidable suffering. B.19.2. The protection of animal welfare is a legitimate aim in the general interest the importance of which has already been noted, in particular when the European member States adopted Protocol No.   33 ‘on protection and welfare of animals’, annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (Official Journal, 1997, C   340, p.   110), the content of which was in large part reproduced in Article   13 of the TFEU. ... B.19.3. The promotion – in the context of their slaughter – of the protection and welfare of animals as sentient beings can be regarded as a moral value shared by many people in the Flemish Region. Consequently, the aim of preventing, at the time of slaughter, any avoidable suffering by animals intended for human consumption is a matter, firstly, of protecting morals and, secondly, of protecting the rights and freedoms of those who value animal welfare as part of their conception of life. It follows that the aim pursued by the impugned decree is a legitimate aim in the general interest that justifies interference with the rights guaranteed by Article   19 of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Article   9 of the ECHR. B.20.1. Moreover, the preparatory documents show that the impugned decree seeks to take account of the increasing awareness of the issue of animal welfare in society... B.20.2. The protection of animal welfare is a moral value to which Belgian society, along with other contemporary democratic societies, attaches growing importance. These social developments must be taken into account in the assessment of animal welfare as a ground justifying a restriction on rights and freedoms ... and, in particular, a restriction placed on the outward manifestation of religious beliefs. B.20.3. Neither freedom of thought, conscience and religion, nor the separation of Church and State, nor the public authorities’ duty of neutrality require those authorities to make provisions to accommodate any philosophical precept – religious or otherwise – in their regulations.   ... B.21.2. The legislature relied on the scientific recommendations of the EFSA and the Animal Welfare Board in deciding, in line with this scientific consensus, no longer to allow exceptions to mandatory stunning prior to slaughter ... B.21.3. It follows that the legislature was entitled to take the view that, by requiring non-lethal, reversible prior stunning, the restrictions which the impugned decree placed on freedom of thought, conscience and religion were necessary and that the aim pursued could not be achieved using a less radical measure ... B.22.1. The preparatory documents also show that, being conscious of the fact that the impugned decree interfered with freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the legislature sought to strike a balance between the aim thus pursued of promoting animal welfare and respect for freedom of thought, conscience and religion   ... B.22.3.   In order to be as responsive as possible to the concerns of the affected religious communities ... , Article   3 §   2 of the Decree of 7   July 2017 provides that, where the killing is subject to particular methods of slaughter prescribed by a religious rite, stunning must be reversible and cannot not result in the animal’s death (section   15(2) of the Law of 14   August 1986, as replaced by Article   3 of the impugned decree). B.22.4. Although, in the applicants’ view, this alternative method of stunning is not in line with the religious precepts of the Jewish and Islamic communities, or of some of them at least – a statement the accuracy of which this Court is not in a position to assess –, this concession may nevertheless be taken into consideration in assessing the proportionality of the restriction on freedom of thought, conscience and religion. ... B.23.1. Furthermore, it is emphasised in the preparatory documents for the Decree of 7   July 2017 that the ability of believers to obtain meat from animals slaughtered in accordance with religious precepts is not affected, there being no provision prohibiting the import of such meat into the Flemish Region. ... B.23.2. However, the legal rules on animal slaughter applicable in other countries and regions, over which the legislature has no control, can play no part in assessing the pertinence or proportionality of the decree in question. Other countries and regions are free to decide whether to provide for an exception to the ban on slaughter without stunning in the case of religious rites. What is more, the legislature, pursuant to Article   26(4) of Regulation (EC)   1099/2009, cannot prohibit the import of meat from animals slaughtered without stunning from other member States of the European Union. That provision seeks to strike a balance between animal welfare and the free movement of goods . The fact that the legislature is not in a position, in this context, to protect animal welfare fully by restricting the sale and consumption of meat from animals slaughtered without stunning cannot, however, prevent it from pursuing that aim by means of such measures as it is empowered to take. B.24. It follows from the foregoing considerations that the restrictions which the impugned decree places on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, while permitting non-lethal, reversible prior stunning where killing is subject to particular methods of slaughter prescribed by a religious rite, meet a pressing social need and are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, namely, the promotion of animal welfare. Consequently, the impugned decree does not entail an unjustified restriction on freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” 11 .     As to the argument alleging a breach of the principle of equality and non-discrimination, the Constitutional Court held, in particular, as follows: “B.42.1. Firstly, it should be noted that the impugned decree treats Jewish and Muslim believers differently from individuals who do not adhere to religious dietary precepts. Thus, where killing is subject to particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites, the impugned decree provides for an alternative stunning method, using a process which is reversible and cannot result in the animal’s death ... B.42.2. Assuming that Jewish and Islamic believers are in fundamentally different situations from the that of individuals who do not adhere to religious dietary precepts, while both categories are subject to the obligation to stun animals before slaughter, the applicants’ complaint amounts, in substance, to alleging an infringement of the religious freedom of Jewish and Islamic believers. ... ... B.44.2. The mere fact that the dietary precepts of the Jewish religious community differ in nature from those of the Islamic religious community does not suffice to conclude that Jewish and Muslim believers are placed in fundamentally different situations in relation to the impugned measure. Thus, it can be seen from the applications that at least part of both religious communities consider the ban on slaughter without stunning to be incompatible with ritual slaughter in accordance with their religious precepts, potentially making it more difficult for them to obtain meat from animals slaughtered in accordance with those precepts.” 12 .     Lastly, as to the allegation that, without reasonable justification, the decrees in question treated persons who killed animals while hunting or fishing differently from those who did so in accordance with particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites, the Constitutional Court declared the argument ill-founded, referring to the reasons given in the judgment of the CJEU mentioned above (see paragraph   8). RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK I.         DOMESTIC LAW 13 .     Belgium is a federal State composed of three communities and three regions, each of which has its own powers defined by the Constitution and by special laws. The three regions are the Flemish Region, the Brussels-Capital Region and the Walloon Region . 14 .     Animal welfare had fallen within the remit of the Federal State until it became a regional competence following a 2014 reform of the State. A.    Legal framework 1.      Federal level 15 .     Prior to its amendment by the impugned decrees (see paragraphs   16-20 below), the Law of 14   August 1986 on the protection and welfare of animals provided that, except in cases of force majeure or necessity, vertebrates could not be slaughtered without being anaesthetised or stunned (section   15, first paragraph). However, this requirement did not apply to slaughter prescribed by a religious rite (section   16(1), second paragraph) . 2.      Flemish Region 16 .     In the Flemish Region, section   15 of the Law of 14   August 1986 was amended by the Decree of the Flemish Region of 7   July 2017 ( decreet van het Vlaamse Gewest houdende wijziging van de wet van 14   augustus 1986 betreffende de bescherming en het welzijn der dieren, wat de toegelaten methodes voor het slachten van dieren betreft ). As in force since 1   January 2019, section   15 now provides: “§   1. A vertebrate may not be killed without prior stunning. It may be killed only by a person possessing the requisite knowledge and skill, using the least painful, quickest and most rigorous method. By way of derogation from paragraph   1, a vertebrate may be killed without prior stunning in the following cases: (1) force majeure ; (2) hunting or fishing; (3) pest control. §   2.   Where animals are slaughtered in accordance with special methods required for religious rites, stunning shall be reversible and the animal’s death shall not be caused thereby .” 17 .     The aforementioned Flemish decree also added section   45ter, which reads as follows: “By way of derogation from section   15, the stunning of cattle slaughtered in accordance with special methods required for religious rites may be carried out immediately after their throats are cut, until such time as the Flemish Government determines that reversible stunning is practicable for these animal species.” 18 .     Under section   36 of the Law of 14   August 1986, as applicable in the Flemish Region, failure to comply with this requirement is punishable by eight days’ to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 52   to 100,000   euros (EUR), or by one of these penalties alone. 3.      Walloon Region 19 .     In the Walloon Region, section   15 of the aforementioned Law of 14   August 1986 was repealed and replaced by Article   D.57 §   1 of the Walloon Code of Animal Welfare, which was adopted on 4   October 2018 and came into force on 1   September 2019 . That provision reads as follows: “An animal may be killed only by a person possessing the requisite knowledge and skill, in accordance with the method that is most rigorous, quickest and least painful for the animal. An animal shall only be killed after being anaesthetised or stunned, except in the following cases: (1) force majeure ; (2) hunting or fishing practices; (3) pest control; (4) acts of killing provided for in the Nature Conservation Act. Where the killing of animals is subject to particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites, the stunning process must be reversible and may not result in the animal’s death. ” 20 .     Under Article   D.105 §   1 of the Walloon Code of Animal Welfare, killing an animal or causing an animal to be killed without resorting to a method that is rigorous, quick or least painful, in breach of Article   D.57 or the conditions laid down therein, is a second-category offence, punishable by eight days’ to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of EUR   100 to   EUR   1,000,000, or by one of these penalties alone. 4.      Brussels-Capital Region 21 .     In the Brussels-Capital Region, sections   15 and 16 of the aforementioned Law of 14   August 1986, as described above (see paragraph   15), are still in force on the date of adoption of the present judgment. B.    Parliamentary debates on the obligation to stun animals before slaughter 1.      Federal level 22 .     A first bill to prohibit ritual slaughter without stunning was introduced in the House of Representatives in 1995 (Bill amending the Law of 14 August 1986 on the protection and welfare of animals and prohibiting ritual slaughter, Parliamentary Documents , House of Representatives, 1995-1996, no.   310/1), followed by a second in 2004 (Bill amending the Law of 5   September 1952 on meat testing and trade and the Law of 14   August 1986 on the protection and welfare of animals, regarding ritual slaughter, Parliamentary Documents , Senate, 2003-2004, no.   3-808/1). Both bills sought to repeal the derogation permitting ritual slaughter without stunning. In 2006 the Conseil d’État delivered an opinion on the 2004 bill, finding that it would disproportionately interfere with freedom of religion (Opinion of the Conseil d’État no.   40.350/AG of 16   May 2006). 23 .     Subsequently, several bills to prohibit ritual slaughter without stunning were again introduced by various political parties in 2010 (Bill amending the Law of 14   August 1986 on the protection and welfare of animals with a view to prohibiting the ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning, Parliamentary Documents , Senate, Extraordinary Session 2010, no.   5-36/1; Bill to prohibit ritual slaughter, Parliamentary Documents , Senate, Extraordinary Session 2010, no.   5-256/1; Bill amending the Law of 14   August 1986 on the protection and welfare of animals with a view to prohibiting ritual slaughter without anaesthesia, Parliamentary Documents , House of Representatives, 2010-2011, no.   437/001; and Bill to prohibit the ritual slaughter of animals without stunning, Parliamentary Documents , House of Representatives, 2010-2011, no.   581/001). None of them was passed. 2.      Flemish Region 24 .     After competence in animal welfare matters was transferred to the Regions in 2014, two new draft decrees prohibiting ritual slaughter were submitted to the Flemish Parliament in 2014 (draft decree amending various provisions of the Law of 14 August 1986 on the protection and welfare of animals, regarding a painless method of killing animals for slaughter, Parliamentary Documents , Flemish Parliament, 2014-15, no.   111/1) and in 2015 (draft decree amending the Law of 14   August 1986 on the protection and welfare of animals and the Law of 5   September 1952 on meat testing and trade, regarding the implementation of a ban on ritual slaughter without stunning, Parliamentary Documents , Flemish Parliament, 2014-15, no.   351/1). In its Opinion of 29   June 2016 ( Conseil d’État , Opinions nos.   59.484/3 and 59.485/3), the Conseil d’État recommended that the legislature seek a balanced means of reconciling the religious freedom of certain believers with the aim of combating animal suffering. 25 .     Following that opinion, a new draft decree ( Parliamentary Documents , Flemish Parliament, 2016-2017, no.   1213/1) was submitted to the Flemish Parliament, subsequently becoming the impugned Decree of the Flemish Region of 7   July 2017 (see paragraph   16 above). The draft decree was reasoned as follows : “1.1.1. Introduction Public opinion is attaching ever-greater importance to animal welfare and therefore expects the [Flemish] Government to develop a consistent, progressive animal welfare policy. There are increasingly urgent demands to put an end to exceptions permitting the slaughter of animals without prior stunning. In 2004 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a ‘scientific opinion’ based on scientific research, concluding that, in view of the serious animal welfare issues associated with slaughter without stunning, animals should always be stunned before slaughter. The Animal Welfare Board issued a similar opinion in 2010. 1.1.2. Historical background For the purpose of putting an end to avoidable suffering by animals, [H.S.] submitted a draft decree on 6   October 2014 seeking to prohibit slaughter without prior stunning. On 8   May 2015 [C.J.], [T.V.G.], [G.D.], [S.S.], [A.V.D.] and [B.B.] submitted a different proposal for a similar ban. The Flemish Parliament’s Committee for the Environment, Nature, Land Development, Energy and Animal Welfare wished to examine every aspect of the issue in detail. To this end, it held a hearing on 16   March 2016, at which were heard representatives of the Association of Flemish Towns and Municipalities, the Flemish Animal Welfare Board, the Belgian Meat Federation (FEBEV), the Belgian Muslim Executive, the Jewish Central Consistory of Belgium and Gaia. After examining the proposals submitted on 25   May 2016, the Committee for the Environment, Nature, Land Development, Energy and Animal Welfare decided to seek the opinion of the Conseil d’État . The Conseil d’État delivered opinions nos.   59.484/3 and 59.485/3 on 29   June 2016 . In its opinions, the Conseil d’État recommended that further measures be developed through dialogue with the affected religious communities, requiring that both sides remain open to alternatives. In response to that recommendation, [the] Flemish Minister for Mobility, Public Works, the Flemish Periphery, Tourism and Animal Welfare appointed [P.V.] as an independent intermediary. [P.V.] was tasked with preparing a report on the matter. ... On 29   March 2017 [P.V.] presented his report to the Flemish Parliament’s Committee for the Environment, Nature, Land Development, Energy and Animal Welfare. The report had been prepared following consultations with the Belgian Muslim Executive, the Coordinating Council of Belgian Islamic Institutions, Muslinked, the Central Jewish Consistory of Belgium, GAIA, FEBEV, the National Federation of Poultry Slaughterhouses and Cutting Workshops, the Belgian Interfaith Dialogue’s Working Group on Ritual Slaughter and a number of individual companies (SGS, Euromeat Group and Sopraco). ... 1.1.4.4. Exchanges on animal welfare and slaughter in accordance with special methods required for religious rites ... Taking account of the outcome of these talks, the requirements of Islamic and Jewish rituals and the current state of scientific knowledge, the independent intermediary made the following proposals to better protect animals during slaughter in accordance with special methods required for religious rites: ‘8.1.1. Reversible (non-lethal) stunning The application of non-lethal, reversible stunning in the practice of ritual slaughter is a proportionate measure which respects the spirit of ritual slaughter within the framework of religious freedom and takes the welfare of the animals concerned fully into account. Therefore, we recommend that non-lethal, reversible stunning be made mandatory for those animal species for which that method is available.’ ... 8.1.2. Post-cut stunning The application of post-cut stunning during slaughter without prior stunning significantly accelerates the animals’ loss of consciousness and has substantial benefits for animal welfare. Therefore, we recommend imposing the post-cut stunning method for those animal species for which reversible stunning methods have yet to be developed, pending the availability of a viable reversible stunning method. ...’ 1.1.4.5. Assessment of the independent intermediary’s proposal As confirmed by the Conseil d’État it its opinions nos.   59.484/3 and 59.485/3, the legislature must strike a balance between respect for religious freedom and the will to reduce animal suffering, having regard to the protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution and applicable conventions . ... However, in order for the proposed measure to be optimally assessed from the standpoint of both animal welfare and respect for religious prescriptions, it must also be examined in the light of the criteria referred to in the opinions of the Conseil d’État , which are used to assess measures involving interference with religious freedom. These include the requirement that the measure be ‘prescribed by law’