## Facts

- Flemish authorities adopted a 2017 decree requiring animals to be stunned before slaughter, including when slaughter is performed pursuant to religious rites.
- For ritual slaughter, the decree permitted only reversible stunning that cannot cause the animal’s death before the throat cut.
- Jewish and Muslim organizations and individuals challenged the decree, asserting their religious rules require the animal to be conscious at the time of the cut and that reversible stunning is incompatible with their practices.
- The challenge was brought in Belgium’s Constitutional Court, which referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for interpretation of EU law.
- EU Regulation 1099/2009 generally requires stunning before killing but permits a derogation for ritual slaughter in slaughterhouses; it also allows Member States to adopt stricter rules for animal welfare in the ritual-slaughter context.

## Issues

1. Whether Regulation 1099/2009 permits a Member State to require reversible, non-lethal stunning for ritual slaughter.
2. Whether requiring reversible stunning for ritual slaughter unlawfully interferes with freedom of religion under Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
3. Whether subjecting ritual slaughter to stricter rules than hunting, fishing, or certain cultural/sporting animal-related activities violates the Charter’s equality and non-discrimination protections (Articles 20–22).

## Decision

- The CJEU held that Regulation 1099/2009 does not preclude national legislation requiring reversible, non-lethal stunning for ritual slaughter.
- The Court found the requirement interferes with religious manifestation but does not violate Article 10 of the Charter because it is justified by animal-welfare objectives and is proportionate.
- The Court rejected the discrimination claims, concluding ritual slaughter is not comparable to hunting, recreational fishing, or cultural/sporting events that fall outside the regulation’s scope.

## Legal Principles

- Regulation 1099/2009 establishes prior stunning as the general rule; ritual slaughter without prior stunning is a limited derogation linked to protecting religious freedom.
- Under Article 26(2)(c), Member States may adopt measures providing more extensive animal-welfare protection in the ritual-slaughter context, including requiring reversible stunning.
- A measure affecting religious slaughter techniques constitutes an interference with Article 10(1) Charter rights, but it may be justified if it pursues a legitimate aim (animal welfare), preserves the essence of the right, and is proportionate.
- In balancing animal welfare and religious freedom, Member States retain discretion where there is no EU-wide consensus, provided the balancing stays within EU-law limits.
- Different treatment does not breach Charter equality guarantees where the compared situations are not objectively comparable within the relevant EU regulatory framework.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld a regional rule requiring reversible pre-stunning for ritual slaughter, holding that EU law permits stricter national animal-welfare protections in this area and that the resulting limitation on religious practice was justified, proportionate, and non-discriminatory under the Charter.


Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van Belg. v. Vlaamse Regering, Case C-336/19 (C.J.E.U. 2020)