## Facts

- National law required animals to be stunned before slaughter and, after statutory amendments, contained no exception for slaughter required by religious rites.
- A prior ministerial regulation that had allowed non-stun ritual slaughter was invalidated as beyond delegated authority, leaving an effectively categorical statutory prohibition reinforced by criminal liability.
- A Jewish religious organization initiated an abstract constitutional review challenging provisions that (i) prevented ritual slaughter in slaughterhouses according to religious rites and (ii) imposed criminal penalties for such slaughter.
- EU rules generally required stunning but expressly allowed an exception for slaughter methods prescribed by religious rites when performed in slaughterhouses, while permitting Member States to maintain stricter preexisting rules.
- The prohibition affected religious minorities’ ability to obtain kosher/halal meat domestically and also implicated large-scale commercial production and export.

## Issues

1. Whether ritual slaughter required by religious rites constitutes a protected manifestation of religion.
2. Whether animal welfare and public morality justify an exceptionless, criminally sanctioned prohibition of ritual slaughter in slaughterhouses.
3. Whether a categorical national ban is a proportionate restriction on religious freedom given the availability of narrower regulatory measures and the EU framework allowing a religious exception.

## Decision

- The Constitutional Tribunal held unconstitutional the statutory rule that prevented slaughter in slaughterhouses according to special methods required by religious rites.
- The Tribunal held unconstitutional the provisions imposing criminal liability for slaughter in a slaughterhouse performed by such religious methods.
- The Tribunal discontinued the proceedings as to the remaining challenged aspects.
- The judgment was adopted by a 9–5 vote, with multiple dissents.

## Legal Principles

- Freedom of religion protects not only belief but also manifestations of religion, including observance of religious customs and dietary rules and practices necessary to fulfill them.
- Protection of animal welfare may qualify as a legitimate aim linked to public morality, but restrictions on religious manifestation must satisfy proportionality.
- A blanket, exceptionless prohibition reinforced by criminal sanctions that effectively eliminates a religious practice is a severe interference requiring strong justification.
- Where less restrictive measures are available (e.g., permitting ritual slaughter only in slaughterhouses, licensing, veterinary supervision, and welfare-focused conditions), an outright ban is not necessary and fails proportionality.
- EU law’s allowance for ritual slaughter in slaughterhouses supported the view that a tailored exception can coexist with animal-welfare objectives, even if EU law did not itself invalidate stricter national rules.

## Conclusion

The Tribunal invalidated a criminally enforced statutory ban on ritual slaughter in slaughterhouses because, although animal welfare/public morality can justify regulation, an exceptionless prohibition was a disproportionate restriction on constitutionally and convention-protected religious freedom.


Union of Jewish Religious Communities in the Republic of Poland v. Sejm, Ref. No. K 52/13 (Pol. Const. Trib. 2014)