Thanks a lot for your insights and questions Ines!
“Can you give a bit more insights on how these litigations can then lead to a change in EU legislation that can maximise the impact on animals across the EU? “
It does not. The objective of the above three strategies is not to improve EU legislation. The aim is that existing legislation is respected in practice. My point is that EU legislation is unlikely to improve any time soon and that we should therefore focus on making sure that legislation that currently only exists on paper, is respected in practice. I believe strategies 2 and 3 are effective to improve animal welfare because legal prohibitions that were dead letter (eg illegal transport methods) become reality.
One exception is the litigation against legislative inaction (strategy 3bis). For example, the End the Cage Age lawsuit aims to force the Commission to come with a legislative proposal. This is a long shot, in my view, even if the lawsuit is successful.
And strategy 2 does not improve EU legislation but overturns Member State legislation that reduced standards. As a result, better standards apply. This is the situation of the 2023 Belgian pig castration legislation. If successful, Belgian farmers will again be banned from doing the castration themselves and will have to rely on vets (as was the case before the 2023 legislation).
“Without strong lobby action allied with the litigation, the impact can even become negative. “
I remember discussing this with you last year. And I concur with you that lobbying and litigation should go hand in hand. Lawsuits can facilitate lobbying because they make clear which open norms can later be enforced in practise and which not. Yet frivolous/abusive lawsuits can damage lobbying because lawmakers/politicians will be afraid to adopt open norms because they open the room for such lawsuits.
However, I am not convinced enforcement litigation (strategy 2) can have negative welfare impact:
If the lawsuit is succesful: a ban that only existed on paper, now also exists in practise (considerable postive impact)
If the lawsuit is succesful but the legislature decides to lift the ban because it is enforced: the ban has been enforced for some time until it is lifted (still positive impact)
If you do nothing: the ban remains alive on paper but not in practise (zero welfare impact)
And are there many examples of EU legislation that is changed because it is enforced (even outside animal welfare)? On lifting chickens by their legs: I think the Commission wanted to lift this ban way before NGOs started enforcement litigation on this. Already in 2021, the Commission communicated that the ban must not be enforced for chickens because it will be revised anyways.
Thanks a lot for your insights and questions Ines!
“Can you give a bit more insights on how these litigations can then lead to a change in EU legislation that can maximise the impact on animals across the EU? “
It does not. The objective of the above three strategies is not to improve EU legislation. The aim is that existing legislation is respected in practice. My point is that EU legislation is unlikely to improve any time soon and that we should therefore focus on making sure that legislation that currently only exists on paper, is respected in practice. I believe strategies 2 and 3 are effective to improve animal welfare because legal prohibitions that were dead letter (eg illegal transport methods) become reality.
One exception is the litigation against legislative inaction (strategy 3bis). For example, the End the Cage Age lawsuit aims to force the Commission to come with a legislative proposal. This is a long shot, in my view, even if the lawsuit is successful.
And strategy 2 does not improve EU legislation but overturns Member State legislation that reduced standards. As a result, better standards apply. This is the situation of the 2023 Belgian pig castration legislation. If successful, Belgian farmers will again be banned from doing the castration themselves and will have to rely on vets (as was the case before the 2023 legislation).
“Without strong lobby action allied with the litigation, the impact can even become negative. “
I remember discussing this with you last year. And I concur with you that lobbying and litigation should go hand in hand. Lawsuits can facilitate lobbying because they make clear which open norms can later be enforced in practise and which not. Yet frivolous/abusive lawsuits can damage lobbying because lawmakers/politicians will be afraid to adopt open norms because they open the room for such lawsuits.
However, I am not convinced enforcement litigation (strategy 2) can have negative welfare impact:
If the lawsuit is succesful: a ban that only existed on paper, now also exists in practise (considerable postive impact)
If the lawsuit is succesful but the legislature decides to lift the ban because it is enforced: the ban has been enforced for some time until it is lifted (still positive impact)
If you do nothing: the ban remains alive on paper but not in practise (zero welfare impact)
And are there many examples of EU legislation that is changed because it is enforced (even outside animal welfare)? On lifting chickens by their legs: I think the Commission wanted to lift this ban way before NGOs started enforcement litigation on this. Already in 2021, the Commission communicated that the ban must not be enforced for chickens because it will be revised anyways.