In 2017, Belgian regional authorities in the Flemish and Walloon regions moved to end the practice of slaughtering animals without stunning, a policy that drew sharp criticism from Jewish and Muslim communities across the country who rely on kosher and halal rites. Moshe Kantor, then-president of the European Jewish Congress, argued that the decision harked back to wartime injustices and saw it as a major infringement on the rights of Belgium’s Jewish population. The European Court of Human Rights later ruled that the regional decrees did not violate religious freedom or equality before the law.
The Belgian Animal Welfare Law prohibits slaughter without anesthesia or stunning, except in cases of force majeure or necessity. A narrow exception exists for religious ceremonies. Following the 2014 State reform, animal welfare responsibilities shifted to the regions. In Flanders (July 2017) and Wallonia (October 2018), several regional governments chose to end the historic exception, while Brussels retained it for the time being after regional deliberations.
Jewish and Muslim organizations challenged the decrees before the Belgian Constitutional Court, prompting questions from the Court of Justice of the European Union about whether non-stunned slaughter violated religious freedoms under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. After the EU Court’s decision, the Belgian high court upheld the regional measures and dismissed the appeals.
appeal to Strasbourg
Thirteen Belgian citizens and seven non-governmental groups representing Muslim communities, alongside Turkish and Moroccan religious authorities and believers living in Belgium, took their case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The plaintiffs argued that their rights to religious freedom were violated and that obtaining meat in line with their faith would become increasingly difficult under the new rules.
The Court ruled unanimously that there was no violation of Article 9 on freedom of thought, conscience and religion nor Article 14 on nondiscrimination. It noted extensive consultations involving various religious groups, veterinarians, and animal-welfare associations, and recognized efforts by Flanders and Wallonia to balance welfare goals with religious practice. The panel also observed that both regions sought a proportionate alternative to the previous mandatory stunning, citing scientific studies and parliamentary work suggesting that a less radical measure would not adequately reduce harm to animal welfare during slaughter.
Regarding the claim that access to meat compatible with religious beliefs would become harder, the Court found that the Flemish and Walloon regions did not bar meat from other regions or countries and did not prove that access had become significantly harder. The ruling concluded that the decrees fell within the margin of appreciation granted to national authorities and were proportionate to the objective of safeguarding animal welfare.
What’s happening in Spain?
The situation in Spain differs from Belgium’s, notes Kamel Jalloul, president of Halal Food and Quality, which certifies most halal foods produced in Catalonia. European Union rules on halal and animal welfare are implemented differently across member states, with Spain following patterns similar to France, Portugal, and Poland. In Belgium, the approach aligns more closely with Germany and the Netherlands, where regulations tend to be stricter.
In Spain, three main forms of ritual slaughter exist. The most common is pre-stunning (electric or mechanical stunning before slaughter). Some practices allow the animal to be killed and then stunned moments later to minimize suffering during bleeding.
Spanish regulations also state that when animals are subjected to certain religious methods, liability falls on the parties involved, and animals must be stunned before slaughter. In this case, the meat cannot be marketed under animal-welfare labeling, though halal certification may still apply to products produced under religious compliance.