(Judgment) Community law did not recognise the rights of animals as fundamental. The applicant owned animals, which fell to be destroyed as part of a preventive cull to protect against the spread of foot and mouth disease. The animals would not be moved nor mix with other animals. They claimed that the ban on vaccination which left the cull as an only alternative, was made without regard to a principle of promoting the welfare of animals. The protection of animals was neither an objective of the community, nor a principle of law. The directive was not manifestly inappropriate.
ECJ Agriculture – Control of foot-and-mouth disease – Prohibition of vaccination – Principle of proportionality – Taking animal welfare into account
‘the criterion to be applied is not whether the measure adopted by the legislature was the only one or the best one possible but whether it was manifestly inappropriate’
Citations:
Times 19-Jul-2001, [2001] EUECJ C-189/01, C-189/01, [2001] ECR I-5689, ECLI:EU:C:2001:420
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Agriculture, European, Animals
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162815
