The L.I.A. legal department provides you here and upon express request with in-depth legal analyses enabling anti-speciesist activists in particular to assess the criminal and financial risks of a planned action.
The L.I.A.’s legal department is available to its members for any legal advice and risk analysis in an APA approach: before, during and after the action.
The L.I.A.’s legal department is available to advise you on your defence, liaise between you and your solicitor and guide you through the complexities of the courts and tribunals.
In addition, the L.I.A.’s legal department is at your disposal to negotiate the settlement of any financial damages that its members may face, as well as to answer questions from its members related solely to its corporate purpose.
These services are available in exchange for a financial contribution in the form of a donation to the L.I.A.’s bank account, the assets of which are used solely to finance the achievement of its corporate purpose.
During 2017, members of the non-profit organisation Animal Rights, based in Ghent, whose main objective is to combat animal abuse, broke into the Verbist slaughterhouse in Izegem with the aim of placing cameras in strategic locations to secretly film the slaughtering of animals. The same members of the non-profit organisation broke in again a few days later to retrieve the cameras, which had been cleverly hidden.
The images recorded by these cameras revealed violations of Belgian and European legislation on the slaughter of farm animals, as well asthe existence of violations of Belgian and European legislation on hygiene in facilities intended for the slaughter of animals. Animal Rights forwarded these images to the Flemish Animal Welfare Inspectorate, which in turn referred the matter to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. It was therefore the Public Prosecutor’s Office itself that decided to prosecute E.E.G. SLACHTHUIS VERBIST IZEGEM NV & VERBIST before the competent criminal court.
The lessons to be learned from this ruling are numerous and valuable. They concern, in particular, the interest in taking legal action for a non-profit organisation whose statutes include the protection and welfare of animals; the admissibility before the criminal court of evidence obtained in violation of several legal provisions (Antigone case law on the admissibility of illegal evidence under certain conditions); the right of a non-profit organisation to act in contravention of the law in order to gather evidence of violations of legal provisions when the non-profit organisation has no other means of achieving this result. The Court also highlights other important lessons for anti-speciesist activism.
This ruling is undoubtedly a decision of prime importance, offering activism rooted in civil disobedience very interesting prospects that are not only likely to facilitate the prosecution of persons who violate legal provisions on animal protection and welfare, but also to justify offences committed by activists under certain conditions.
This is a landmark court decision for anyone who believes that they have no other option to effectively protect certain animals in danger than to commit acts that appear illegal at first glance based on the legal provisions in force.
Full analysis available on request.
For a person to be convicted of an offence under Belgian criminal law, two conditions must essentially be met: the first is that the acts for which the person is being prosecuted must meet the constituent elements of the offence as set out in the Criminal Code; this is the material element. The second is that the Public Prosecutor’s Office must prove criminal intent, i.e. the moral element, also known as criminal intent.
The material elements of the offence consist essentially of the elements objectively set out in the body of the law. The moral element, on the other hand, is what is known as criminal intent. For the offence to be established, the perpetrator of the act classified as theft must have been fully aware that they were stealing something that belonged to someone else and must have had the intention to steal that thing.
However, in some cases, a person may not be convicted even though the material elements of the offence are present and criminal intent is also clearly present. Criminal law recognises that, in exceptional circumstances, a person may violate a criminal provision without being subject to criminal sanctions. These circumstances may result from justifications, excuses or, finally, grounds for non-imputability.
The judgment handed down by the 16th Criminal Division of the Court of First Instance of Liège on 14 December 2023 in the case of JADOUL, DUCHESNE, BOZARD v. the Public Prosecutor’s Office is particularly interesting in that it first distinguishes between the legal consequences of a justification and those of an excuse. The trial judge then carefully examines the impact, in terms of grounds for excuse, of the use of freedom of expression for a manifestly political purpose, in the light of the abundant case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
In this case, the three defendants are being prosecuted for theft and attempted theft of three advertising banners relating to electric cars in order to use them for their political environmental activism.
This ruling offers phenomenal prospects for civil disobedience, as it allows us to consider that the purpose of the acts deemed illegal was not to break the criminal law but to denounce an unjust situation.
Drawing on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of expression, the defendants mounted a groundbreaking defence aimed at showing that the criminal intent necessary for their criminal conviction was not proven.
In this case, they argued that their primary intention was never to break the criminal law, but rather to denounce the lies of the automotive industry.
The court agreed with them and did not impose any penalties. This was a fascinating judgement that offers serious grounds for defence in cases of civil disobedience.
Full analysis available on request.
An exceptional criminal trial was held before the 6th Criminal Division of the Charleroi Court of First Instance in the autumn of 2024.
Judge for yourself: 33 defendants were prosecuted for alleged criminal conspiracy, destruction of property (hunting towers) and theft of property (animals). They faced significant criminal penalties and civil proceedings. Nineteen civil parties had joined the case: hunters and several hunting councils. More than €300,000 in damages were sought. The offences dated from 2018 to 2020.
In this case, the criminal proceedings were based on the special status of animals under Belgian law. Although certain animals are considered sentient beings under regional codes on animal welfare and protection, the Belgian Civil Code still considers that, in their legal relations with the world around them, animals must be treated as tangible movable property.
Thirty-three citizens stood up to challenge this state of affairs and attempted to explain to the court that, based on recent ethical, scientific and ethological advances proving their sentience, animals should no longer be considered as movable property but as sentient beings, and that their sole presumed intention was not criminal and culpable but, on the contrary, to provide them with essential assistance to avoid immediate danger.
The co-defendants also considered that if animals were recognised by the legislator for what they really are, there would obviously be no criminal offences, but rather essential help provided to individuals in mortal danger. The alleged actions would then constitute a simple manifestation of freedom of political expression, which is absolutely guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The jurisprudential stakes are enormous.
In this extraordinary trial, all relevant defences were raised by the co-defendants and their lawyers: absence of moral element, justification based on the absolute necessity to intervene, freedom of expression and political intent.
Although the court did not uphold the co-defendants’ defences, the judges opened up avenues which, under the conditions prescribed by the judgment, make it possible to remove the criminal nature of the acts.
Full analysis available on request.
The Court of Cassation’s ruling was handed down following an appeal against the Ghent Court of Appeal’s ruling of 20 October 2023, which had upheld the complaint and civil action brought by an association for the defence and protection of non-human animal rights.
The Court of Cassation overturned this favourable ruling on the grounds that: The Court of Cassation ruled that: “in its grounds for declaring the civil action admissible, the Court of Appeal, while noting that the association pursued a collective interest that is distinct from the general interest and consists in particular in defending animals living in captivity and defending the protection of animals against human cruelty, mistreatment and abuse, did not establish that this social objective aims to protect human beings and fundamental freedoms as recognised in the Constitution and international legal instruments binding on Belgium .
Article 17(1) of the Judicial Code provides that ‘The action cannot be admitted if the claimant has neither the capacity nor the interest to bring it’. This provision requires that the person bringing a civil action has an interest of their own, i.e. a personal and direct interest.
According to the Court of Cassation, and this is where the controversy lies: “A legal person has an interest of its own only in seeking compensation for damage consisting either of material damage due to an attack on its assets or of moral damage due to an attack on its name or reputation. Thus, unless there is a specific contractual or legal provision, a legal entity does not acquire an interest of its own solely because an offence infringes upon a collective interest that it seeks to preserve or promote under its articles of association.”
Full analysis available upon request
What does Belgian legislation say about pets in rental properties?
Full analysis available on request.
Comprehensive analysis upon express request
Comprehensive analysis upon express request
Comprehensive analysis upon express request
Comprehensive analysis upon express request