By Jessica Lawrence, PhD student, VU University Amsterdam
In the Zuchtvieh-Transport case, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) determined that Regulation 1/2005, concerning the protection of animals during transport, applies beyond EU borders. This means that even when transport starts within the EU and ends outside its borders, the regulation still governs the journey. This decision is significant as it promotes animal welfare but also reflects the CJEU’s expanding interpretation of EU jurisdiction, stretching conventional international law principles on ’territorial jurisdiction'.
Facts and Judgment
This case revolves around Stadt Kempten, a German municipality, declining to provide an export permit to Zuchtvieh-Export, an animal transport company. This refusal stemmed from the company’s planned transport of cattle from Germany to Uzbekistan, a journey spanning approximately 7000 km over nine days. The planned trip included just two 24-hour rest stops where the cattle would receive food and water but wouldn’t be unloaded. Stadt Kempten deemed this schedule non-compliant with Regulation 1/2005, which outlines EU standards for animal welfare during transport.
Zuchtvieh-Export contested this decision in court. This led to the Bavarian Higher Administrative Court seeking a preliminary ruling from the CJEU. The court sought clarification on whether Regulation 1/2005 applied only to the portion of the journey within the EU or to the entire trip, even those segments outside EU borders.
The CJEU unequivocally asserted that Regulation 1/2005 applies even when the journey extends beyond EU territory. It emphasized that the regulation “does not subject the transport of animals with a point of departure within the territory of the European Union and a destination in a third country to any particular approval scheme, different from that applicable to transport taking place within the European Union”. The only acknowledgment of limitations to EU authority was the stipulation that if a third country’s laws or practices demonstrably and definitively prevent full compliance with Regulation 1/2005, the competent authority at the departure point can exercise discretion. This discretion allows for planning that ensures animal welfare equivalent to the regulation’s standards, considering the transport methods and travel arrangements.
The CJEU’s decision to apply Regulation 1/2005 outside EU borders contradicted Advocate General Bot’s opinion. The Advocate General argued that the regulation’s scope was limited to the EU, and applying it externally would essentially delegate enforcement to other countries, compelling them to ensure compliance with the regulation. Advocate General Bot argued that this contradicted the rules governing animal transport into the EU, where transit companies are only obligated to meet EU animal welfare standards upon entering EU territory.
Comment
Analyzing Zuchtvieh alongside the Court’s other rulings on applying EU rules beyond its borders is insightful. International law typically discourages extraterritorial regulation, prioritizing state sovereignty and non-interference in other states’ affairs. Extraterritorial rules are generally acceptable only with a strong jurisdictional basis, such as the involvement of nationals or domestic consequences due to actions abroad. However, in recent times, the CJEU has shown a willingness to leverage ambiguity within these jurisdictional terms to allow applying EU rules with legislative impact on third states. The CJEU justifies this application through “territorial extension,” which uses a potential connection to the EU, even if limited, to validate regulating conduct occurring in third states.
The Air Transport Association case serves as a prime example. In this case, American air transport companies challenged the EU’s decision to include emissions from non-EU airlines operating outside European territory within its carbon emissions trading scheme. The CJEU ruled this permissible, asserting that it doesn’t violate international law’s prohibition on extraterritorial regulation. The Court’s perspective was that the emissions trading scheme wasn’t ’extraterritorial’ because its application was confined to airports within EU jurisdiction, irrespective of any effects on actions outside its borders. This and other cases exemplify the CJEU’s inclination toward broad interpretations of regulatory jurisdiction.
Similarly, in Zuchtvieh, the CJEU reasoned that there was no extraterritorial regulation since the animal transport permit in question was issued within the EU. Despite Advocate General Bot expressing apprehensions about the implications of this interpretation for transporters and customs officials in third states, the CJEU deemed these concerns irrelevant to its determination.
The Zuchtvieh ruling is anticipated to enhance animal welfare, leading to improved conditions for countless animals transported from the EU to other countries annually. Beyond these tangible effects, the judgment also highlights the CJEU’s growing tendency to extend the reach of EU legislation to cover conduct occurring in third-state territories.
The sustainability of this trend and the point at which the CJEU might deem the extraterritorial reach of EU law to have reached its limit remain to be seen. This prompts questions about the case’s impact on the ’external dimension’ of EU law, a crucial concern for EU policymakers. A key consideration is whether the EU has the right to impose its rules, values, and fundamental rights standards on other countries. Another crucial point is determining when ‘territorial extension’ transitions into an unlawful or inappropriate exertion of EU authority. The international community certainly shows resistance towards EU ‘territorial extension’. Despite the CJEU’s endorsement of the emissions trading scheme in the Air Transport Association case, for instance, the international backlash was so strong that the EU consented to suspend its implementation pending the outcome of international negotiations for a more comprehensive global rule. Although Zuchtvieh hasn’t sparked comparable opposition so far, it does shift the established international legal dialogue about jurisdiction. It promotes a broader understanding of which entities have the authority, and responsibility, to regulate the conduct of economic activities that transcend borders.
Originally published on EU LAW BLOG
Barnard & Peers: chapter 24
Photo credit: www.ciwf.org.uk