The Belgian Ban on Non-Stunning Ritual Slaughter – Belçika’da Şok Etmeden Yapılan Ritüel Kesime Yönelik Yasak

Merhaba sevgili okuyucularımız

Bu yazımızda Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesinin vermiş olduğu “Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v. Belgium, no. 16760/22 et al., 13 February 2024” kararından hazırladığımız bir okuma metnini bulacaksınız. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi 9. Madde bağlamında değerlendirilen bu kararda yer alan temel Hukuk İngilizcesi terminolojisine ait bir de kelime listesi sizi bekliyor olacak.

Keyifli çalışmalar dileriz …

The Belgian Ban on Non-Stunning Ritual Slaughter: A Legal Analysis

In a significant ruling, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has upheld the legality of decrees issued by the Flemish and Walloon Regions of Belgium, which prohibit the slaughter of animals without prior stunning, while allowing for reversible stunning in cases of ritual slaughter.

The case arose from challenges brought by various Muslim and Jewish organizations and individuals who argued that the decrees infringed upon their right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants contended that the ban on non-stunning slaughter made it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain meat that adhered to their religious dietary laws.

The ECtHR acknowledged that the ritual slaughter of animals, as a religious practice, falls within the scope of Article 9’s protection of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. However, the Court also recognized the increasing importance placed on animal welfare by contemporary societies. It held that the protection of animal welfare could be considered a legitimate aim under Article 9, falling within the concept of “public morals.”

The Court found that the Belgian decrees were prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and were necessary in a democratic society. It emphasized that the regional legislatures had carefully considered the competing interests of religious freedom and animal welfare, and had opted for a proportionate solution that allowed for reversible stunning in cases of ritual slaughter.

The ECtHR also rejected the applicants’ claims of discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention. It held that the distinction between ritual slaughter and other forms of animal killing was justified, and that the decrees did not disproportionately impact Jewish and Muslim believers.

In conclusion, the ECtHR’s judgment underscores the delicate balance between individual religious rights and collective societal interests. While recognizing the importance of religious freedom, the Court affirmed the state’s authority to regulate practices that may have a significant impact on animal welfare. This ruling provides valuable insights into the evolving interpretation of human rights law in the context of animal welfare and religious freedom.