The Extraterritorial Arrive At Of Eu Animate Beingness Welfare Rules

By Jessica Lawrence, PhD student, VU University Amsterdam

In an interesting judgment inwards Zuchtvieh-Transport, the CJEU has ruled that Regulation 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport applies exterior of European Union borders to carry taking house inwards tertiary states, if that carry began on European Union territory. This is a new ruling that is expected to receive got of import positive impacts on animate beingness welfare. However, it tin also move seen equally an illustration of the CJEU’s style inwards recent years to read the EU’s jurisdiction expansively, stretching traditional international constabulary notions of ‘territorial jurisdiction’ to allow the regulation of take away taking house inwards tertiary states.

Facts as well as Judgment

The illustration at mitt concerns the refusal of Stadt Kempten, a municipality inwards Bavaria (Germany), to number an export allow to animate beingness carry companionship Zuchtvieh-Export. In 2012, Zuchtvieh-Export planned to carry 62 cattle from Kempten to Andijan (Uzbekistan), a journeying of some 7000 km. The trip would convey some ix days, during which fourth dimension alone ii 24-hour long residual stops were planned. During these residual stops, the cattle would move fed as well as watered, but non unloaded. Stadt Kempten refused customs clearance for the cattle because this schedule was non inwards accordance amongst the provisions of Regulation 1/2005, which sets European Union standards for animate beingness welfare during transport.

Zuchtvieh-Export objected to this decision, as well as filed a claim at the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court, Bavaria). During its proceedings, that courtroom asked the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the interrogation whether, amongst observe to animate beingness carry involving a long journeying that begins inwards the European Union but ends far exterior of its borders, Regulation 1/2005 applies alone to the percentage of the carry taking house inside the EU, or also to those parts of the carry taking house exterior of European Union territory.

The CJEU came downward firmly on the side of extraterritorial application, stating unambiguously that Regulation 1/2005 “does non plain of report the carry of animals amongst a dot of difference inside the territory of the European Union as well as a goal inwards a tertiary dry soil to whatever detail blessing scheme, unlike from that applicable to carry taking house inside the European Union” (para. 47). The alone nod the Court makes to the limits of European Union potency is the following:

“Should it nevertheless move the illustration that the constabulary or administrative exercise of a tertiary dry soil through which the carry volition transit verifiably as well as definitely precludes amount compliance amongst the technical rules of [Regulation 1/2005], the margin of discretion conferred on the competent potency of the house of difference empowers it to convey realistic planning for carry which, inwards the lite inter alia of the agency of carry used as well as the journeying arrangements made, indicates that the planned carry volition safeguard the welfare of the animals at a degree equivalent to those technical rules.” (para. 54)

In finding that Regulation 1/2005 also applies to those parts of animate beingness carry taking house exterior of the EU, the Court went against the opinion of Advocate General Bot. The AG was indeed of the persuasion that the orbit of the Regulation was limited to the EU, as well as that applying it to carry exterior of European Union borders would essentially deputize the regime of other countries, requiring them to “check to ensure compliance amongst the rules set downward yesteryear the regulation” (AG’s opinion, para. 54). As Advocate General Bot pointed out, this would move inconsistent amongst the rules regarding the carry of animals into the EU, according to which transit companies must encounter European Union animate beingness welfare standards alone 1 time they come inwards European Union territory (AG’s opinion, para. 82).

Comment

It is especially interesting to see Zuchtvieh in lite of the Court’s other recent illustration constabulary on the extraterritorial application of European Union rules. Traditionally speaking, international constabulary frowns upon extraterritorial regulation, instead deferring to province sovereignty as well as its corollary, the regulation of non-interference inwards the affairs of other states. Extraterritorial rules are therefore alone permissible where at that topographic point is a solid jurisdictional argue for enacting them (for example, because the actors involved are nationals, or the behavior abroad has domestic territorial effects). In recent years, however, the CJEU has seemed quite willing to purpose the ambiguity inherent inwards these jurisdictional damage to allow the application of European Union rules that receive got legislative effects inwards tertiary states. It has justified the application of such rules exterior its borders using what Joanne Scott has helpfully termed “territorial extension”: the exercise of using a (potentially quite limited) territorial connectedness amongst the European Union to justify the regulation of take away taking house inwards tertiary states.

In the Air Transport Association case, for example, an association of American air carry companies challenged the EU’s determination to apply its carbon emissions trading system to emissions yesteryear non-EU planes that took house exterior European territory, if those flights landed inwards the EU. The CJEU flora that this was permissible, as well as should non move seen equally violating the prohibition of extraterritorial regulation nether customary international law. (ATA para. 157). In the Court’s view, the emissions trading system was non ‘extraterritorial’, because it was applied alone at airports inside European Union jurisdiction—regardless of whatever effects on extraterritorial behaviour. For other examples of wide readings of regulatory jurisdiction yesteryear the CJEU, 1 powerfulness facial expression to before cases such as Minin, Poulsen, and Ebony Maritime.

Similarly, in Zuchtvieh, the CJEU flora that at that topographic point was no extraterritorial regulation because the allow for transporting the animals inwards interrogation was issued inside the EU. While Advocate General Bot expressed his delineate of piece of job organization regarding the effects such an interpretation would receive got on the take away of transporters as well as customs officials inwards tertiary states, the CJEU clearly did non notice these issues relevant to its determination.

The Zuchtvieh ruling is expected to receive got positive effects on animate beingness welfare, improving weather for the millions of animals transported from the European Union to tertiary states every year. In add-on to these concrete effects, however, the judgment also demonstrates the increasing style of the CJEU to expand the permissible accomplish of European Union legislation to take away taking house on tertiary province territory.

It remains to move seen whether this style volition continue, as well as at what dot the CJEU volition consider that the extraterritorial accomplish of European Union constabulary has reached its limit. One may indeed interrogation the comport on of this illustration on the so-called ‘external dimension’ of European Union law, which is 1 of the key concerns present for European Union policy-makers. Is the European Union entitled to export its rules/values/fundamental rights standards to other countries? At what dot does ‘territorial extension’ function out an illegal or illegitimate exercise of European Union authority? European Union ‘territorial extension’ definitely encounters quite some resistance from the international community. Despite the CJEU’s blessing of the emissions trading system in Air Transport Association, for example, international backlash against the dominion was as well as then strong that the European Union agreed to suspend its functioning as well as then long equally international negotiations on a to a greater extent than global dominion were underway. Although Zuchtvieh has therefore far non generated a like protest, it does modify the measure international legal conversation nearly jurisdiction, pushing an expanded agreement of who tin as well as should regulate the behavior of cross-border economical activities.

Originally published on EU LAW BLOG

Barnard & Peers: chapter 24

Photo credit: www.ciwf.org.uk

Share this post