Document type : blog post Landot & Associés
Author : Eric Landot
Preview: The Administrative Court of Montpellier has just taken the view that it is possible for deficiencies in the State veterinary services to leave the State liable, on the basis of Article L. 214 of the French rural and maritime fishing code (CRPM) stating that animals, as sentient beings, must not be subjected to ill treatment.
In itself, this is interesting. But the administrative tribunal has in the past taken the view that the State is only liable in cases of gross negligence on the part of its veterinary services in the particular case of the fight against epizootics. On the other hand, whether evidence of gross negligence, or not, is required in the case of failures in the inspection of abattoirs is less clear-cut. [...] It is also interesting to note that the Montpellier Court of Appeals has just condemned the State for the inadequate inspection of an abattoir without having stated whether or not the failure should be characterised as gross, even though the Ministry responded once the difficulties reported by L214 were communicated.
We do not know, though, whether the State, in its defence, thought to suggest that gross negligence should be required for it to be held liable.
The main argument accepted by the tribunal was based on the provisions of Article L. 214 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code (CRPM), according to which animals are sentient beings that must not be subjected to ill-treatment.
L. 214 installed cameras in the Rodez abattoir that revealed the ill-treatment of animals on the sheep slaughter line. Several months later, it posted these videos online.
Following this accusation, the Minister of Agriculture suspended the abattoir's operations.
But for the tribunal, the fault lay in the deficiencies of the State veterinary services in their execution of the full inspections they are required to carry out, twice a year and unannounced, of the daily work of abattoirs under European and national legislation.
The Court noted in particular that the fault was further established by the fact that serious failures identified in 2016 had been repeated in 2020. But it did so without reference to the issue of whether the negligence was 'gross' or not.
Last, the court has required the State to pay the sum of 3 000 EUROS in damages to the applicant association in compensation for the moral damage suffered.
