Abstract
Many are the books, essays, and writings on animal liberation and on the lives of animals, which are informed by either of two fundamental visions: superiority of human beings, hence exploitation and domination over the animal kingdom, or all beings belong to the tree of life, hence empathy and respect.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Adopting the title by Singer (1975).
- 2.
Consider, for instance, the text of the two lectures (Poets and Animals—Philosophers and Animals) delivered by the imaginary character Elizabeth Costello, by Coetzee (1999).
- 3.
See Grenier (1998).
- 4.
This is what Bentham (1907), chapter XVII, section I, no 122, insisted on: “The day has been, I grieve to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly upon the same footing as, in England for example, the inferior races of animals are still. The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withheld from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”.
- 5.
On the issue of considering animals as possessions or objects that can be owned, see the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals, Bilida v. McLeod, 211 F.3d 166 (1st. Cir. 2000), concerning the well-known case of the racoon called Mia.
- 6.
As stated by Woolf (1933).
- 7.
Expression used by de Fontenay (1999).
- 8.
- 9.
Appeal launched by Regan (2004).
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
According to the anthropocentric viewpoint, in the name of a privileged moral status of the homo sapiens, according to the biocentric viewpoint, in the name of the superfluity of human kind, as synthetically expressed by Taylor: if we were to look at the issue from the viewpoint of Nature and if we were to voice its interest, the conclusion of our era, that is six inches long, would be very probably dismissed with a hearty ‘Bon voyage! (Taylor 1998, pp. 76–77).
- 13.
Among the Constitutions of the Member States, Article 20a GG, introduced in 1994 and amended in 2002, intends to protect the natural foundations of life and animals in light of the accountability that the State has towards future generations. Indeed Article 20a reads: “Der Staat schützt auch in Verantwortung für die künftigen Generationen die natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen und die Tiere im Rahmen der verfassungsmäßigen Ordnung durch die Gesetzgebung und nach Maßgabe von Gesetz und Recht durch die vollziehende Gewalt und die Rechtsprechung.” See Epiney, in von Mangoldt et al. (2018), Artikel 20a GG; Murswiek, in Sachs (2017), Artikel 20a GG.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
To be exact this was a “first symbolic act, albeit historically compelling, in the long path towards the recognition of a legal status to non-human beings” (quote from Tallachini 2010, p. 307).
- 17.
An intergovernmental treaty that provides a framework for action at national level and for international cooperation aimed at conserving and promoting a “rational” use of the humid areas of the planet and of their resources. It is the only international treaty on the environment that deals with the protection of these special ecosystems, which, besides conserving biological diversity, provide water and primary productivity on which depends the survival of innumerable plant and animal species. Available at https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/scan_certified_e.pdf.
- 18.
An intergovernmental treaty that defines the rights and responsibilities of States in the use of the seas and oceans and in the management of mineral resources. Available at https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf.
- 19.
In other words, the only international agreement aimed at setting forth a limitation on the emissions responsible for the greenhouse effect, climate change, and global warming, currently ratified by 192 States.
- 20.
- 21.
Convention also known under the acronym CITES, whose purpose is to regulate the international trade of endangered species of wild flora and fauna and that affects the trading of both live and dead specimens (whole specimens, body parts or by-products obtained from them), seeking to prevent the commercial exploitation of the endangered species.
- 22.
This Convention encourages international agreements to protect the species that migrate from one Country to another, emphasizing the importance of local activities such as scientific research, monitoring, regulation of hunting, protection and where necessary the reinstatement of resting and mating sites, emphasizing the need to reduce the obstacles to migration and control all elements that may cause hazards.
- 23.
Consider the contribution given by anti-specie ethics as early as the first half of last century by authors of the likes of Marcucci, Capitini, Pioli, Baglietto, Martinetti (see Marcucci 2011).
- 24.
Harrison (1964).
- 25.
It is worth making some fundamental quotes taken from the General Provisions: “before animals are loaded for international transport, they shall be inspected by an authorized veterinary officer of the exporting country who shall satisfy himself that they are fit for transportation […]. Loading shall be carried out under arrangements approved by an authorised veterinary officer” (Article 3); “Animals likely to give birth during carriage or having given birth during the preceding 48 hours shall not be considered fit for transportation” (Article 4); “Animals shall be provided with adequate space and, unless special conditions require to the contrary, room to lie down […]. The means of transport and containers shall be constructed so as to protect animals against inclement weather conditions and marked differences in climatic conditions. Ventilation and air space shall be adapted to the conditions of transport and be appropriate for the species of animals carried. […] During transport animals shall be offered water and appropriate food at suitable intervals. Animals shall not be left more than 24 hours without being fed and watered. This period may, however, be extended if the journey to the destination where the animals are unloaded can be completed within a reasonable period” (Article 6). Available at https://rm.coe.int/1680072317.
- 26.
- 27.
This Convention lays down the regulatory foundations for the protection of livestock welfare requirements and, in particular, of animals in intensive stock farming systems. The Convention requires the adoption of measures designed to ensure animal welfare and confirms the need to avoid unnecessary suffering or injury, while stating the right to having their physiological and ethological needs respected.
- 28.
Which sets forth some obligations: “[…] While waiting in the means of transport they shall be protected from extremes of weather and provided with adequate ventilation. […]” (Article 3); “The animals shall be unloaded and moved with care. […] The animals shall not be frightened or excited. […] animals shall not be lifted by the head, feet or tail in a manner which will cause them pain or suffering” (Article 4); “Animals shall not be taken to the place of slaughter unless they can be slaughtered immediately” (Article 6).
- 29.
Which states: “Nobody shall cause a pet animal unnecessary pain, suffering or distress. Nobody shall abandon a pet animal” (Article 3); “Any person who keeps a pet animal or who has agreed to look after it, shall be responsible for its health and welfare. Any person who is keeping a pet animal or who is looking after it shall provide accommodation, care and attention which take account of the ethological needs of the animal in accordance with its species and breed, in particular: a) give it suitable and sufficient food and water; b) provide it with adequate opportunities for exercise; c) take all reasonable measures to prevent its escape” (Article 4).
- 30.
- 31.
This Convention seeks to limit the use of animals used for scientific purposes and states that experiments on animals should be the last resort encouraging the use of alternative methods and confirming the obligation to avoid that animals used as guinea pigs be subject to unnecessary suffering.
- 32.
Aimed at expanding the scope of application of the Convention to include biotechnological stock-farming and adapt its provisions to the new circumstances in stock-farming matters. Available at https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168007bd27.
- 33.
Which updated the provisions of the Convention in the light of the more recent scientific applications. Available at https://www.coe.int/it/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168007f2cc.
- 34.
Council Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing, O.J. L 340/21. The Directive sets forth that animals must be spared any avoidable pain, distress, or suffering and envisages that the stunning (or killing facilities) be designed in such a way as to ensure rapid stunning and death.
- 35.
Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, O.J. L 61/1.
- 36.
Council Directive 1999/22/EC relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos, O.J. L 94/24. This Directive comprises 11 Articles. Its objectives are “to protect wild fauna and to conserve biodiversity by providing for the adoption of measures by Member States for the licensing and inspection of zoos in the Community, thereby strengthening the role of zoos in the conservation of biodiversity”.
- 37.
Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC, O.J. L 146/1. The text was subsequently repealed by Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the non-commercial movement of pet animals and repealing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 Text with EEA relevance, O.J. L 178/1.
- 38.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, O.J. L 3/1.
- 39.
Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council banning the placing on the market and the import to, or export from, the Community of cat and dog fur, and products containing such fur, O.J. L 2007 L 343/1.
- 40.
Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, O.J. L 300/1 It repealed Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, O.J. L 273/1.
- 41.
Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, O.J. L 276/33.
- 42.
See ➔ para 2. See also Orrù (2002).
- 43.
More recently, see Driessen (2017), p. 547 et seqq.
- 44.
Hughes (1976), pp. 1005–1018.
- 45.
Cavalieri (1999).
- 46.
Warren (1997).
- 47.
Battaglia (1997), p. 35 et seqq.
- 48.
Marguenaud and Dubois (2009).
- 49.
See Picozza (2012).
- 50.
See Michetti (2003).
- 51.
In connection to this aspect Driessen (2017), p. 554, states that: “Many people would not want to forgo their bacon and for that reason treat pigs as food, no matter how intelligent they are. The point is that there is an element of selectivity in the treatment we mete out to animals that does not depend on the level of their innate abilities or intelligence but on factors relating to our perception and use of them. This has an impact on animal welfare, which is thus more geared towards humans’ perceptions and concerns than to the species’ needs.”
- 52.
Court of Appeal of Alberta, Reece v. City of Edmonton, 2011 ABCA 238, Dissenting Reasons for Judgment Reserved of The Honourable Chief Justice Fraser, 57–58.
- 53.
It is interesting to recall that the first explicit reference made by the Court of Justice to Article 13 TFEU was in Case C-533/11, Brouwer (ECJ 14 June 2012), made in a preliminary ruling on the scope of Directive 91/629/EEC on the protection of bull-calves. On case law on the merits—and specifically on the need to protect animals also during transport across the States of the Union—see Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58-06, Viamex Agrar Handel et ZVK (ECJ 17 January 2008); Case C-455/06, Heemskerk BV (ECJ 25 November 2008); Case C-424/13, Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH (ECJ 23 April 2015).
- 54.
Tallachini (2010), p. 322.
- 55.
On this point, see Adinolfi (2016), p. 19 et seqq.
- 56.
Lombardi Vallauri (2014), p. 523 points out: “animals are worthy of protection on the basis of two criteria: value and subjectivity”.
- 57.
Appl. No 9300/07, Herrmann v Germany (ECtHR (G.C.) 26 June 2012) para 92.
- 58.
Lévinas (1976), p. 213 et seqq.
- 59.
All cited internet sources in this comment have been accessed on 9 December 2019.
References
All cited internet sources in this comment have been accessed on 9 December 2019.
Adinolfi, A. (2016). Il trattamento degli animali nel diritto dell’Unione Europea tra interessi commerciali, protezione ambientale e “benessere”: verso lo sviluppo di valori condivisi? In A. Bianchi et al. (Eds.), Scritti per Luigi Lombardi Vallauri (pp. 19–44). Padova: Cedam.
Battaglia, L. (1997). Etica e diritti degli animali. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Bentham, J. (1907). The principles of moral and legislation. London: Clarendon Press.
Blumann, C. (2009). Les objectifs économiques et politiques de l’Union européenne: vecteurs ou limite de la protection des animaux. In J.-P. Marguenaud & O. Dubois (Eds.), Les animaux et droits européens au-delà de la distinction entre les hommes et les choses (pp. 81–94). Paris: Pédone.
Brambell, F. W. R. (1965). Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Broom, D. M., & Johnson, K. G. (1993). Stress and animal welfare. London: Chapman, & Hall.
Castignone, S., & Lombardi Vallauri, L. (Eds.). (2012). La questione animale. Milano: Giuffré.
Cavalieri, P. (1999). La questione animale. Per una teoria allargata dei diritti umani. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
Clark, J. D., Rager, D. R., & Calpin, J. P. (1997). Animal well-being. Laboratory Animal Science, 47, 564–570.
Coetzee, J. M. (1999). The lives of animals. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Costato, L., Borghi, P., Russo, L., & Manservisi, S. (Eds.). (2011). Dalla riforma del 2003 alla PAC dopo Lisbona. I riflessi sul diritto agrario alimentare e ambientale. Napoli: Jovene.
Curti Gialdino, C. (Ed.). (2012). Codice dell’Unione Europea, TUE e TFUE commentati articolo per articolo. Napoli: Simone.
de Fontenay, E. (1999). Le Silence des bêtes. La philosophie à l’épreuve de l’animalité. Paris: Fayard.
Driessen, D. (2017). Fundamental animal rights in European law. European Law, 23(3), 547–585.
Francione, G. L. (1995). Animals, property, and the law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Grenier, R. (1998). Les larmes d’Ulysse. Paris: Gallimard.
Harrison, R. (1964). Animal machines. The new factory farming industry. New York: Ballantine Books.
Hughes, B. O. (1976). Behaviour as an index of welfare. In Proceedings of the VI European poultry conference. Malta.
Lévinas, E. (1976). Nom d’un chien ou le droit naturel. Difficile Liberté. Paris: Albin Michel.
Lombardi Vallauri, L. (2007). Animali: istruzioni per il non-uso. Credere oggi, XXVII.
Lombardi Vallauri, L. (2014). La questione animale come questione filosofico-giuridica. Rivista di filosofia del diritto, 521–532.
Mangiameli, S. (Ed.). (2006). L’ordinamento europeo. L’esercizio delle competenze (Vol. 2). Milano: Giuffré.
Marcucci, E. (2011). Che cos’è il vegetarismo? Rome: Edizioni dell’asino.
Marguenaud, J.-P., & Dubois, O. (Eds.). (2009). Les animaux et les droits européens au-delà de la distinction entre les hommes et les choses. Paris: Pédone.
Mazzoni, C. M. (2011). La questione dei diritti degli animali. Rivista Critica di Diritto Privato, 265–276.
Michetti, M. (2003). Libertà religiosa e tutela degli animali: aspetti problematici della macellazione rituale in Germania. Annuario di Diritto tedesco, 539–573.
Orrù, R. (2002). Il vento dei nuovi diritti nel Grundgesetz tedesco ora soffia anche sugli animali? Diritto Pubblico Comparato Ed Europeo, 1138–1143.
Picozza, E. (2012). La direttiva 2010/63/UE. I poteri della Unione Europea e discrezionalità degli Stati membri. www.dirittoambiente.com
Pocar, F., & Baruffi, M. C. (Eds.). (2014). Commentario breve ai Trattati dell’Unione Europea. Padova: Cedam.
Randolph, M. (2012). Every Dog’s Legal Guide: a must-have for your owner. Berkeley: Nolo.
Regan, T. (1988). The case for animal rights. London: Routledge.
Regan, T. (2004). Empty cages: Facing the challenge of animal rights. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Rook, D. (2014). Who gets Charlie? The emergence of pet custody disputes in family law: Adapting theoretical tools from child law. International Journal of Law Policy and the Family, 28(2), 177–193.
Sachs, M. (Ed.). (2017). Grundgesetz Kommentar. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Sbrescia, V. M. (2008). Le competenze dell’Unione Europea nel Trattato di Lisbona. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.
Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: Random House.
Sirsi, E. (2011). Il benessere degli animali nel Trattato di Lisbona. Rivista di Diritto agrario, 191–210.
Sobbrio, P. (2013). Le emozioni negate. Il bilanciamento degli interessi nelle normative sulla tutela, la protezione e il benessere degli animali non umani in Europa. In M. Andreozzi, S. Castignone, & A. Massaro (Eds.), Emotività animali. Ricerche e discipline a confronto (pp. 37–46). Milano: Led.
Tacchi, P. (2007). La protezione degli animali in Europa. In Esseri senzienti da tutelare o soggetti pericolosi? Macerata: Eum.
Tallachini, M. (2010). Dignità, etica science-based, democrazia: la tutela animale nella società europea della conoscenza. In A. G. Chizzoniti & M. Tallachini (Eds.), Cibo e religione: diritto e diritti (pp. 207–322). Rome: Libellula edizioni.
Taylor, P. W. (1998). The ethics of respect for nature. In M. E. Zimmerman et al. (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: From animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 197–218). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Tizzano, A. (Ed.). (2014). Trattati dell’Unione europea. Milano: Giuffrè.
von Mangoldt, H., Klein, F., & Starck, C. (Eds.). (2018). Bonner Grundgesetz Kommentar. Munich: Verlag Franz Vahlen.
Warren, M. A. (1997). Moral status. Obligations to persons and other living things. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wise, S. M. (2000). Rattling the cage. Toward legal rights for animals. Cambridge: Perseus Books.
Woolf, V. (1933). Flush: A biography. London: Hogarth Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
List of Cases
List of Cases
1.1 ECJ
-
ECJ 17.01.2008, C-37/06 and C-58-06, Viamex Agrar Handel et ZVK, ECLI:EU:C:2008:18 [cit. in para 21]
-
ECJ 25.11.2008, C-455/06, Heemskerk BV, ECLI:EU:C:2008:650 [cit. in para 21]
-
ECJ 14.06. 2012, C-533/11, Brouwer, ECLI:EU:C:2013:659 [cit. in para 21]
-
ECJ 23.04. 2015, C-424/13, Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2015:259 [cit. in para 21]
1.2 ECtHR
-
ECtHR 26.06.2012, 9300/07, Herrmann v. Germany [cit. in para 21]
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Amato Mangiameli, A.C. (2021). Article 13 [Animal Protection]. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – A Commentary. Springer Commentaries on International and European Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43509-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43511-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)