The Directive sought to provide welfare protection for battery chickens. The applicant complained that the farming techniques which restricted diet in order to encourage fast growth would have been prevented if the respondent had properly implemented the Directive in its Code under the 1968 Act, and in the 2000 Regulations. They said that the Directive required the respondent to control compliance through criminal sanctions. The respondent had adopted a scheme of only civil enforcement.
Held: The obligations were expressed in a general fashion, which was to be taken to allow the respondent a discretion as to how the objectives could be achieved. The objectives of the Directive were not to be confused with the means of attaining them. The respondent was entitled to conclude that a criminal code might be counter-productive.
Judges:
Newman J
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 2850 (Admin), Times 05-Dec-2003
Links:
Statutes:
Council Directive 98/58/EC, Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 2, Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000
Citing:
See Also – Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd ECJ 19-Mar-1998
Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the Treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient.
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina on the Application of Compassion In World Farming Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants challenged regulations as to animal welfare, saying that they allowed farmers to use practices which did not protect animal welfare.
Held: It was not unlawful to adopt a policy of not prosecuting farmers for practices which would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Agriculture, European, Animals
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188324