Case C-5/94 ex parte Hedley Lomas
"Between April 1990 and 1 January 1993 the [UK government] systematically refused to issue licences for the export to Spain of live animals for slaughter on the ground that their treatment in Spanish slaughterhouses was contrary to [EU LAW] on stunning of animals before slaughter."
"Despite [Spain passing a law], the [UK government] became convinced, in particular on the basis of information obtained from the Spanish Society for the Protection of Animals, that a number of Spanish slaughterhouses were not complying with the rules contained in the Directive, either because they did not have the necessary equipment for stunning animals or because the equipment was not being used correctly or at all. Although it did not have sufficient evidence as to the overall position in Spanish slaughterhouses, the Ministry formed the view that the information in its possession indicated a degree of non-compliance with the Directive such as to create a substantial risk that animals exported to Spain for slaughter would suffer treatment contrary to the Directive."
The outcome of the case? A rough summary
1. If the EU have laws in place which "harmonise" trade between countries within the EU - then animal welfare concerns can not be used to prevent that form of trade happening even if there is evidence of cruelty to animals.
2. Making money (free trade within the union) is more important than animal welfare!
Is this the sort of EU that you support? Do you think making money at the expense of animal suffering is acceptable? If not - have you signed the petition calling for the creation of a Directorate-General to enhance animal welfare - or are you content this is how your tax money is spent?
"Between April 1990 and 1 January 1993 the [UK government] systematically refused to issue licences for the export to Spain of live animals for slaughter on the ground that their treatment in Spanish slaughterhouses was contrary to [EU LAW] on stunning of animals before slaughter."
"Despite [Spain passing a law], the [UK government] became convinced, in particular on the basis of information obtained from the Spanish Society for the Protection of Animals, that a number of Spanish slaughterhouses were not complying with the rules contained in the Directive, either because they did not have the necessary equipment for stunning animals or because the equipment was not being used correctly or at all. Although it did not have sufficient evidence as to the overall position in Spanish slaughterhouses, the Ministry formed the view that the information in its possession indicated a degree of non-compliance with the Directive such as to create a substantial risk that animals exported to Spain for slaughter would suffer treatment contrary to the Directive."
The outcome of the case? A rough summary
1. If the EU have laws in place which "harmonise" trade between countries within the EU - then animal welfare concerns can not be used to prevent that form of trade happening even if there is evidence of cruelty to animals.
2. Making money (free trade within the union) is more important than animal welfare!
Is this the sort of EU that you support? Do you think making money at the expense of animal suffering is acceptable? If not - have you signed the petition calling for the creation of a Directorate-General to enhance animal welfare - or are you content this is how your tax money is spent?