מארכיון בית המשפטעתירה לבית המשפט הגבוה לצדק

"נח" ההתאחדות הישראלית של הארגונים להגנת בעלי-חיים נ' היועץ

פסק הדין בבג"ץ 9232/01 ניתן ביום 11 באוגוסט 2003.

ההכרעה, במילותיו של בית המשפט.

To summarize: in Europe, despite an awareness of the problematic nature of force-feeding geese, the various arrangements – the Convention [60], the Directive [61], and the Standing Commission’s Recommendations [62] – did not prohibit the practice. See also the European Commission’s response in September 2001 to questions presented by European Parliament Member David Martin E-2284/01, E-2285/01, and E-2286/01, and the Commission’s answer given in April 2003 to Baroness Ludford’s query; E-0703/03EN –

פסק הדין ניתן ביום 11 באוגוסט 2003.

בית המשפט: בית המשפט העליון
מקרה: בג"ץ 9232/01
נפתח: 2001
ניתן: 11 באוגוסט 2003
משך: 58 עמודים

כך מצטטים את פסק הדין.

בג"ץ 9232/01 "נח" ההתאחדות הישראלית של הארגונים להגנת בעלי-חיים נ' היועץ (11.8.2003)

הנוסח המלא של פסק הדין.

פסק-דין

HCJ 9232/01

1.“Noah” - The Israeli Federation of Animal Protection Organizations

1.The Attorney-General

2.The Minister of Agriculture

3.The Egg and Poultry Board

4.Moshe Benishty and 31 Others

The Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice

[August 11, 2003]

Before Justice T. Strasberg-Cohen (ret.), Justices E. Rivlin and A.. Grunis

Petition to the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice

Petition granted.

Facts: Petitioner asked that the Court declare the force-feeding of geese for the production of foie gras to be illegal. Furthermore, they ask that the Court issue an order annulling the Cruelty to Animals Regulations (Protection of Animals), (Force-Feeding of Geese), 2001, and declare them to be in contradiction to section 2(a) of the Cruelty to Animals Law.

Held: The Court declared that the force-feeding of geese, pursuant to the Cruelty to Animals Regulations (Protection of Animals) (Force-Feeding of Geese), 2001, constituted abuse of animals, and a violation of section 2(a) of the Cruelty to Animals Law. As such, the Court annulled the regulations that had regulated the raising and force-feeding of geese.

Foreign Constitutions Cited:

Constitution of India, §51(a)

Constitution of Germany, §20(a)

Statutes Cited:

Cruelty to Animals Law (Protection of Animals), 1994, §§ 2, 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 3, 3(a), 3(b), 4, 5, 6, 8, 15, 17A, 19, 22(1)

Penal Law, 1977, §§ 61(a)(1), 451, 457, 495, 495(a)(1)

Criminal Ordinance, 1936, § 386

Fishing Ordinance, 1937, §§ 5, 10(3)

Restoration of Lost Property Law, 1973, § 6

Execution of Judgments Law, 1967, § 22

Animal Diseases Ordinance (new version), 1985, § 16

The Shepherd’s Ordinance (License Granting), 1946,

Dog Supervision Law, 2002, § 6(e)(2)

Protection of Wildlife Law, 1955, § 2, 5

Cruelty to Animals Law (Experimentation on Animals), 1994, §§ 1, 4, 8(c), 9

Veterinary Doctors Law, 1991, § 2

Real Estate Agents Law, 1996, § 20(a)

Regulation of Investment Advisors and Portfolio Managers Law, 1995

Real Estate Assessors Law, 2001, §7(a)(1), 45(a)(1)

Real Estate Assessors Law, 1962, §6(2)

Regulations Cited:

Cruelty to Animals Regulations (Protection of Animals) (Force-Feeding of Geese), 2001, §§ 1, 3, 4, 5, 5(2)(a), 6, 7, 8

Livestock and Fowl Regulations (Sea Transport), 1936, § 13, 15, 19

Cruelty to Animals Regulations (Protection of Animals) (Exhibitions, Shows, Competitions), 2001

Animal Diseases Regulations (Animal Slaughter), 1964

Nature Reserve Regulations (Orders and Conduct), 1979

Naval Regulations (Seamen), 2002, § 86(a)

Israeli Supreme Court Cases Cited:

[1]

HCJ 9374/02 Let the Animals Live v. Brigadier General Dr. Giora Martinovitch, IsrSC 57(3) 128

[2] LCA 1684/96 Let the Animals Live v. Hamat Gader Recreation Enterprises, IsrSC 51(3) 832

[3] HCJ 6446/96 The Cat Welfare Society of Israel v. Municipality of Arad, IsrSC 55(1) 769

[4] HCJ 1715/97 The Israel Association of Investment Managers v. The Minister of Finance, IsrSC 51(4) 367

[5] HCJ 5936/97 Dr. Oren Lamb v. Director of the Ministry of Education, IsrSC 53(4) 673

[6] HCJ 108/70 Manor and Colleagues v. The Minister of Finance, IsrSC 24(2) 442

[7] CA 2313/98 The Minister of Industry and Trade v. Mincol, IsrSC 54(1) 673

[8] HCJ 971/99 The Movement for the Quality of Government in Israel v. The Knesset Committee, IsrSC 56(6) 117

[9] HCJ 448/85 Dahr v. The Minister of Interior, IsrSC 40(2) 701

[10] CA 6024/97 Fredricka Shavit v. Hevre Kadisha (Jewish Burial Services) of Rishon Le'Zion, IsrSC 53(3) 600

[11] HCJ 2481/93 Dayan v. Police Commander of the Jerusalem District, IsrSC 48(2) 456

[12] CA 6821/93 Mizrahi Bank v. Migdal, IsrSC 50(2) 45

[13] LCA 7504/95 Yassin v. The Party Registrar, IsrSC 50(2) 45

[14] HCJ 7015/02 Ajuri v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank, IsrSC 56(6) 352

[15] HCJ 693/91 Efrat v. Director of Registration of Inhabitants, IsrSC 47(1) 749

[16] CrimA 2947/00 Avraham Meir v. The State of Israel, IsrSC 56(4) 636

[17] CA 165/82 Kibbutz Hatzor v. Assessing Officer of Rehovot, IsrSC 39(2) 70

[18] HCJ 5016/96 Lior Horeb v. The Minister of Transportation, IsrSC 51(4) 1

[19] CFH 2401/95 Ruthie Nahmani v. Daniel Nahmani, IsrSC 50(4) 661

[20] HCJ2458/01 New Family v. The Ministry of Health, IsrSC 57(1) 419

[21] HCJ 3477/95 Israel Ben-Atiya v. The Minister of Education, Culture and Sports, IsrSC 49(5) 1

[22] HCJ 3648/97 Israel Stamka v. The Minister of Interior, IsrSC 53(2) 738

[23] HCJ 4769/95 Ron Menahem v. The Minister of Transport, IsrSC 57(1) 235

[24] HCJ 491/86 The Municipality of Tel Aviv v. The Minister of Interior, IsrSC 41(1) 757

[25] HCJ 4769/90 Amar Salah Zidan v. The Minister of Labor and Social Affairs, IsrSC 47(2) 147

[26] HCJ 389/80 The Yellow Pages v. The Broadcasting Authority, IsrSC 35(1) 421

[27] HCJ 10455/02 Boaz Alexander Amir v. The Bar Association, IsrSC 57(2) 729

[28] HCJ 551/99 Shekem. v. The Director of Customs and Value Added Tax, IsrSC 54(1) 112

[29] HCJ 6652/96 Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. The Minister of Interior, IsrSC 52(3) 117

English Cases Cited:

[30] Ford v. Wiley [1889] 23 Q.B. 203

European Court of Justice Cases Cited:

[31] R v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion in World Farming [1998] 2 C.M.L.R. 661

Indian Cases Cited:

[32] N.R. Nair v. Union of India (2002) 6 S.C.C. 84

Canadian Cases Cited

[33] Regina v. Menard (1978) 43 C.C.C (2d) 458

Israeli Books Cited:

[34] Z. Levi & N. Levi, Ethics, Feelings, and Animals: The Moral Status of Animals (2002)

[35] 2 A. Barak Interpretation in the Law – Interpretation of Legislation (2d ed. 1993)

[36] 3 A. Barak Interpretation in the Law – Constitutional Interpretation (1994)

Israeli Articles Cited:

[37] A. Ben-Ze’ev, The Reason for Prohibiting Cruelty to Crocodiles, 4 Law and Government 763 (1997)

[38] P. Lerner, Thoughts on Feeding Street Cats – Following CrimA 897/01 State of Israel v. Urovsky, 16 The Law 74, 83 (2003)

[39] Y. Wolfson The Moral and Legal Status of Animals, 5 Law and Government 551 (2000)

Foreign Books Cited:

[40] Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights (1988)

[41] Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (1975)

[42] Gary L. Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law (1995)

[43] M. Radford, Animal Welfare Law in Britain (2001)

[44] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics 57-8 (2d Ed. 1994)

[45] A.N. Rowan et al., Farm Animal Welfare – The Focus of Animal Protection in the USA in the 21 st Century, 57-61 (1999)

Foreign Articles Cited:

[46] Cass R. Sunstein, Standing for Animals (with Notes on Animal Rights), 47 UCLA L. Rev. 1333 (2000)

[47] R. Lockwood, Animal Cruelty and Violence Against Humans: Making the Connection, 5 Animal L. 82 (1999)

[48] L.S. Antoncic, A New Era in Humane Education: How Troubling Youth Trends and a Call for Character Education are Breathing New Life into Efforts to Educate Youth about the Value of All Life, 9 Animal L. 183 (2003

[49] R. Descartes Animals are Machines, in Animal Rights and Human Obligations 13-19 (P. Singer and T. Regan Eds 1989)

[50] L. Letourneu, Toward Animal Liberation? The New Anti-Cruelty Provisions and Their Impact on the Status of Animals, 40 Alberta L. Rev. 1041, 1042 (2003)

[51] E.L. Hughes & C. Meyer, Animal Welfare Law in Canada and Europe, 6 Animal L. 23, 33 (2000)

[52] T. Regan The Case for Animals Rights, in Animal Rights and Human Obligations 105-14 (P. Singer and T. Regan eds. 1989)

[53] L.H. Tribe, Ten Lessons Our Constitutional Experience Can Teach Us About the Puzzle of Animal Rights: The Work of Steven M. Wise, 7 Animal L. 1 (2001)

[54] D.R. Schmahmann & L.J. Polacheck The Case Against Animal Rights for Animals, 22 B.C. Envtl. Aff L. Rev. 747 (1995)

[55] P. Singer, Ethics and Animals, 13 Behavioral and Brain Sct. 45, 46 (1990)

[56] P.D. Frasch et. al., State Animal Anti-Cruelty Statutes: An Overview, 5 Animal L. 69 (1999)

[57] D.J. Wolfson, Beyond the Law: Agribusiness and the Systematic Abuse of Animals Raised for Food Production, 2 Animal L. 123, 132 (1996)

Miscellaneous:

[58] Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare: Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese (1998)

[59] D. Lahav, “Prohibiting the Forced Molting of Laying Hens – an Economic Perspective” (2001)

[60] European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes (1976).

[61] Council Directive 98/58/EC (1998)

[62] Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes: Recommendation Concerning Domestic Geese and Their Crossbreeds (1999).

Jewish Law Sources Cited:

[63] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 31a; 128b

[64] A.S. Abraham Medical Experimentation on Animals and Humans, 10(2) Asya 20 (1984)

[65] Job 5:7

On behalf of petitioner–D. Sherman, A. Peleg

On behalf of respondents 1 & 2–A. Leicht

On behalf of respondent 3–T. Manor

On behalf of respondents 4–B. Naor; A. Hakikat

JUDGMENT

Justice A. Grunis

1.This petition was submitted on July 10, 2002 and an order nisi was granted. Petitioner asks us to rule that the force-feeding of geese is prohibited under Israeli law. Petitioner requests a declaration that the Cruelty to Animals Regulations (Protection of Animals) (Force-Feeding of Geese), 2001 are void, an order instructing respondent 2 [hereinafter – the Minister of Agriculture] to issue new regulations prohibiting the practice of force-feeding geese, as well as an order that respondent 1 instruct the police to investigate and prosecute those involved in force-feeding geese.

Facts, Proceedings and Arguments

2.Force-feeding geese is a process aimed at creating an enlarged and fatty liver, which is then used to make a dish called Foie Gras. The process begins when the goose reaches a weight of approximately 4 kilograms, and is 8-10 weeks old. During the force-feeding period the goose is forcibly fed by the insertion of a tube into its esophagus. This process is repeated several times daily. The geese are fed high-caloric food in order to make their liver especially fatty. The amount of food they are forced to digest is much greater than the amount they require. The process lasts several weeks, until the liver reaches its optimal size. At optimal size the liver is several times the size of a normal liver. During the force-feeding period, the goose is fed exclusively by this method, though it continues to drink normally.

3.Approximately 100 family farms are employed in raising geese in Israel, 45 of which are employed in the actual force-feeding process. The remainder breed the geese and raise the geese prior to the force-feeding period. Respondents 4 include some of these farms. Israel produces over 500 tons of foie gras annually, half of which goes to the local market, while the rest is exported. The annual turnover of the industry reaches tens of millions of shekels. In addition to those who raise the geese, there are businesses that provide secondary services. Thus, the livelihood of several hundred families dependends on this industry, which has been active in Israel for about 40 years. Clearly, these families have invested significant sums of money in developing this specialized agricultural industry. The investment was partially funded by the state; the Ministry of Agriculture supported and encouraged the development of this agricultural industry.

4.The country most closely identified with the production and consumption of foie gras is France, where it is considered a culinary delicacy. France consumes approximately 85 percent of the world’s foie gras. Of the European countries, Belgium and Spain also produce foie gras. We mention the European countries since, as we shall see, the matter of force-feeding was taken up by European law. Foie gras is also produced in Tunisia and China, as well as in a number of South American countries. This data is taken from the report of the European Council’s Scientific Committee in The Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese (December 16, 1998) [58].

5.Petitioner is an umbrella organization for animal rights organizations in Israel. In a previous petition submitted by this organization in 1999 (HCJ 8357/99), petitioner requested this Court to order the Minister of Agriculture to issue regulations, pursuant to his authority under the Cruelty to Animals Law (Protection of Animals), 1994 [hereinafter – Protection of Animals Law], which would prohibit the force-feeding of geese. The current regulations were issued while the petition was pending in this Court. Petitioner withdrew the previous petition in order to submit the current one.

The Law

6.The Protection of Animals Law was enacted in 1994. Section 1 of the law defines “animals” as “vertebrae animals, excluding man.” Section 2 of the law states:

(a) A person will not torture an animal, will not be cruel toward it, or abuse it in any way.

(b) A person will not set one animal against another.

(d) A person will not cut tissue from an animal for decorative purposes

Section 2(a) is the relevant provision for our case. In addition, Section 19 of the law deals with implementation of the law and regulations. See para. 19 below. The Minister of Agriculture issued regulations pursuant to this latter section. The Knesset’s Education and Culture Committee authorized the regulations, according to the required procedure. Regulation 1 describes the purpose of the regulations:

“The purpose of these regulations is to prevent the suffering of geese caused by feeding with the aim of producing foie gras, and to freeze the foie gras industry in Israel. This is in the spirit of the Recommendations of the Standing Committee working under the European Council’s Convention for Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes.”

These recommendations are quoted in para. 10 below. The regulations include several directives which regulate the force-feeding of geese. Regulation 3 provides that force-feeding farms may only operate according to the arrangement set out in the regulations. Forced feeding may only be carried out with a pneumatic machine. The regulations also set a maximum limit for the length and diameter of the feeding tube, and for the amount the geese are fed daily. In addition, in regulation 7, the Minister of Agriculture ordered the foie gras industry to be frozen, i.e. no new farms for force-feeding geese may be established, and the existing ones may not be expanded. Furthermore, the regulations provide that violation of regulation 7 can lead to six months imprisonment or a fine, as per section 61(a)(1) of the Penal Law, 1977. The Regulations came into effect, for a period of three years, on March 12, 2001. Accordingly, they will no longer be in force as of March 11, 2004.

The Arguments

7.Petitioner claims that the force-feeding geese is unlawful under Israeli law. Petitioner singles out certain elements of the process, as well as the damage caused to the geese’s liver as a result of the process: inserting a tube down the goose’s esophagus, using pressure to force the special food down the feeding tube, and the unnatural enlargement of the liver. Petitioner argues that the force-feeding process affects the goose’s movements and the steadiness of its feet. Petitioner makes the further claim that the process of force-feeding constitutes cruel treatment of the animals, which is forbidden by Section 2(a) of the Protection of Animals Law. As mentioned, pursuant to the statute, the Minister of Agriculture issued the Regulations in 2001. Petitioner argues that these regulations were enacted contrary to law, since they permit an agricultural practice that is inconsistent with the law, that the regulations are impractical, cannot be enforced, and in fact are not being enforced at present.

Respondents counter that, were the petition to be accepted, it would bring an end to the entire industry since, without force-feeding, the liver is not a marketable product. Respondents claim that the method of force-feeding has been used in Israel for dozens of years, and that bringing an end to the industry would put those employed by it out of work. Furthermore it is argued that the method of force-feeding does not constitute cruel treatment of animals, and that the purpose of the regulations is to reduce their suffering during feeding. Moreover, respondents add that the regulations were authorized by the Education Committee, and therefore particular caution should be used when discussing their validity. Respondents point out that the European Council and the European Union did not outlaw force-feeding, and that the Israeli regulations followed those created in Europe. In addition, they argue that the High Court of Justice should not intervene in this case, since petitioner may submit a private criminal complaint pursuant to Section 15 of the Protection of Animals Law; petitioner also has the option of petitioning the Magistrate Court, pursuant to Section 17(a) of the law, for an injunction to prohibit a breach of section 2 of the law.

Cruelty to Animals

8.The relationship between humans and other animals has been the focus of much public interest in recent decades. This subject raises a number of different questions and dilemmas. The question, from a moral perspective, is whether, and to what extent, animals should serve as the needs of men. On one extreme we have the view, unpopular today, which argues that, as the most important and advanced creature on the planet, humans have the right to do anything they wish to other creatures. On the other extreme is the belief that animals, or at least sentient beings, are the legal equals of human beings; according to this view, there should be no animal experimentation. The third view takes a middle ground, accepting neither of the two extreme positions. Rather, it claims that humans should be considerate of animals, and take their welfare into account. In other words, it rejects the first, purely utilitarian view of animals, according to which humans can do whatever they wish to animals. Instead, the third position argues that the use man makes of animals should be restricted, with the aspiration of gradually improving their situation. It seems that the Hebrew phrase “cruelty to animals” (tza’ar ba’alei haim), borrowed from Jewish religious law, is equivalent to what is currently referred to as animal welfare. For a concise description of the various philosophical approaches, see chapter 7 of Z. Levi & N. Levi, Ethics, Feelings, and Animals: The Moral Status of Animals (2002) [34]; For an extensive discussion of the view espousing equality between the rights of humans and animals see Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights (1988) [40]. There is no doubt that this latter view does not find expression in Israeli law or in the law of any other country. However, it should be noted that the constitutions of both India and Germany include sections relating to animals. Section 51(a) of the Indian constitution establishes that it is the duty of every Indian citizen “to have compassion for living creatures.” Section 20(a) of the German Grundgesetz, as amended in 2002, asserts that, as part of the state’s responsibility toward future generations, it is responsible to protect “the natural foundations of life” as well as animals.

Clearly, the status that animals in our society currently enjoy is not the same as it was in the past. As we shall see, Israeli legislation has given expression to this difference in recent years. The problem of the present case has unique characteristics. This is not a case of animal experimentation, or of the use of animals as beasts of burden, nor is it a case of using animals for purposes of entertainment, or of animals as pets. This is a case of raising animals in a certain way, so that eventually they – or to be precise, one of heir organs – will serve as food for humans. We emphasize this element since it differentiates this case from previous ones. In addition, our ruling in this case may have ramifications for other agricultural methods used to raise animals for human consumption.

9.The first edition of the book “Animal Liberation” [41] by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, published in 1975, caused a great stir and greatly contributed to the growing awareness of animal suffering. We mention this work since a large part of it is dedicated to what can be called industrial agriculture – the industry methods of raising animals for purposes of human consumption. No longer are we concerned with a family farm with chickens roaming freely, cows grazing in the meadow, and sheep nibbling innocently in search of food. Today when we speak of raising hens for eggs or poultry for meat, we speak of something completely different: thousands of chickens are kept together in very crowded conditions; their movement is greatly restricted; the food they are fed is not natural, but is rather meant to better the quality and price of the animal products.

We will make mention of similar situations. Calf meat (veal), like goose liver, is a culinary delicacy. In order to get high quality veal, calves are raised under special conditions. The calves are kept in narrow stalls, which do not allow them room to move. They are also fed special food that does not contain iron. This is intended to make the meat as light colored as possible. This is done despite the fact that the calves need iron and, as a result of the lack of this necessary dietary element, they become anemic. As we will see below, the issue of raising calves was dealt with in England and by supranational European bodies. Another practice in industrial agriculture is the forced molting of feathers from hens raised for eggs. The purpose of this practice is to renew the hen’s ability to lay eggs, and thus to increase the farmer’s income. In Israel, molting is accomplished by starving the chickens. For more on this subject, see a study conducted by the Knesset’s Research and Information Center: D. Lahav, “Prohibiting the Forced Molting of Laying Hens – an Economic Perspective” (2001) [59].

The European Legal Situation

10.The European Council adopted the “European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes” [60] in 1976, and amended it in 1992. The European Union adopted the Convention, and its members ratified it. The following two rules of the Convention are relevant to our case:

Article 3

“[N]o animal shall be kept for farming purposes unless it can be reasonably expected, on the basis of its phenotype or genotype, that it can be kept without detrimental effects on its health or welfare.”

Article 6

“No animal shall be provided with food or liquid in a manner, nor shall such food or liquid contain any substance, which may cause unnecessary suffering or injury.”

As we will see, the phrase “unnecessary suffering,” as used in article 6 of the Convention, is referred to in legislation and in court decisions, and is pertinent to the present discussion. It should be noted that the European Court of Justice declared the Convention’s provisions to be indicative only. R v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion in World Farming [1998] 2 C.M.L.R. 661, para. 34 [31].

Another relevant European document is the 98/58/EC European Union Directive of 1998 [61]. The Directive was meant to implement the Convention. Its provisions, however, are of a general nature, and no mention is made of practices for raising specific animals. Article 3 of the Directive instructs EU members to make arrangements to ensure that animal owners and keepers use all reasonable measures to ensure animals’ welfare. Like Article 6 of the Convention, this article prohibits causing “unnecessary pain, suffering or injury.” Article 14 of the Directive’s annex concerns the feeding of animals. The article provides that an animal should not be given food in a manner that may cause it unnecessary suffering or injury. Neither the Convention [60] nor the Directive [61] makes direct mention of force-feeding geese. This subject, however, was given attention in the Scientific Committee Recommendations [58] (see para. 4 supra), as well as in the 1999 Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes: Recommendations Concerning Domestic Geese and their Crossbreeds [62]. These detailed Recommendations specify the conditions under which geese should be raised. According to the preface of the Recommendations, certain methods of producing foie gras do not measure up to the requirements of the Convention. The Recommendations include rules regarding the qualifications required of employees that raise animals, the structures in which animals should be kept, and the conditions under which animals should be raised. Section 25 of the Recommendations specifically refers to foie gras. Section 25(1) provides that countries that allow the production of foie gras should encourage research on the raising of geese, and on alternative methods of foie gras production that would not require force-feeding. Section 25(2) is particularly relevant to our case:

“Until new scientific evidence on alternative methods and their welfare aspects is available, the production of foie gras shall be carried out only where it is current practice and then only in accordance with standards laid down in domestic law.

In any case, the competent authorities shall monitor this type of production to ensure the implementation of the provisions of the Recommendation.”

This provision shows that, although the force-feeding of geese is problematic, the authorized bodies in Europe decided not to ban the practice completely. Accordingly, countries in which geese are raised for foie gras may continue using the force-feeding method. Section 26 of the Recommendation provides that the subject shall be reevaluated after five years. Unquestionably, the regulations of the Minister of Agriculture, which petitioner is contesting, are based, at least partially, on the Standing Committee’s Recommendations. For a general discussion of the relation between the Convention [60], the Directive [61] and the Standing Committee’s Recommendations [62], concerning the specific case of calf raising, see R. v. Minister of Agriculture [31].

Let us return to the 1998 Report of the Scientific Committee [58] (see para. 4 supra). This 90 page report deals extensively with the raising of geese for foie gras. Throughout the Report the Committee notes that there is too little information regarding the effects of force-feeding on animals. Even so, the Report concludes that force-feeding is “detrimental to the welfare of the birds.” Despite this conclusion, the Report does not recommend completely prohibiting the practice (although one of the Committee members, in a minority opinion, held that force-feeding geese should be completely banned. The Scientific Committee’s Report does not refer to any European country that specifically prohibited force-feeding geese. (In the protocol of Education Committee’s October 31, 2000 meeting a number of European countries were mentioned as having outlawed this practice. Apart from the Czech Republic, those countries are not mentioned in the Scientific Committee’s Report as countries in which the method of force-feeding was used).

חיפוש התיק באתר בית המשפט העליון

בית המשפט נתן את פסקי הדין האלה בערך באותו זמן.

כל פסקי הדין של בית המשפט העליון →

ההכרעה, במילותיו של בית המשפט.

פסק הדין ניתן ביום 11 באוגוסט 2003.

כך מצטטים את פסק הדין.

הנוסח המלא של פסק הדין.

בית המשפט נתן את פסקי הדין האלה בערך באותו זמן.

עוד כלים