Animal welfare in Belgium has suffered a major setback and taken a real step backward. It’s all well and good to appoint aldermen, regional and federal ministers responsible for animal welfare—it looks good to the public and wins votes… but in reality, Belgian institutions and politicians (with a few exceptions) simply don’t care.
Meanwhile, in neighboring France and most European countries, animal protection organizations have the right to bring abusers to justice; animals even have their own lawyers! A model Belgium does not deem relevant to follow.
The Justice Commission of the Chamber recently rejected a bill supported by the parties Groen and DéFI, which aimed to allow animal protection organizations like GAIA and Animal Rights to become civil parties in cases of animal abuse. The proposal was rejected with 10 votes against, none in favor, and 3 abstentions. This refusal follows a ruling by the Court of Cassation on June 11, 2024, which had already significantly limited the legal avenues available to these organizations.
In its June 2024 decision, the Court of Cassation ruled that animal protection associations do not have a “sufficient personal interest” to become civil parties in abuse cases. This legal reasoning excludes these organizations from the judicial system: they can no longer trigger investigations through a magistrate, no longer have access to case files, and can no longer be recognized as victims—even though they play a vital watchdog role on the ground.
This interpretation of Article 17 of the Judicial Code is far from unanimous. It has been called absurd and dangerous by many legal scholars and academics, who fear it will lead to an increase in cases being dismissed without prosecution in instances of animal cruelty.
Michel Vandenbosch, president of GAIA, calls the situation dramatic: “Many convictions for animal abuse have only happened because of our complaints. Today, we are being muzzled legally.” He decries this as a major regression for animal welfare, believing that this exclusion effectively grants impunity to abusers. To him, the message from the political class is clear: animals don’t matter.
GAIA emphasizes that its interventions don’t replace those of the judiciary, but rather complement them. These associations fill the gaps in a legal system that is often too slow or unwilling to pursue certain abuse cases.
The Court’s ruling is seen as a gift to those who mistreat animals. Up to now, by being able to become civil parties, associations maintained pressure on judicial authorities, played a watchdog role, and tangibly advanced the animal cause. Their exclusion is likely to have real consequences: more dismissed cases, unpunished offenders, and a rise in abuse cases.
This imbalance is all the more striking when compared to environmental NGOs, which have long been allowed to act in court. The Court of Cassation appears to apply double standards—one for nature defenders, another for animal protectors.
The Justice Commission’s rejection of the bill comes despite numerous positive signals from legal experts. During parliamentary hearings on October 22 and December 10, 2024, several legal professionals spoke in favor of the reform. The College of Public Prosecutors, though not overly enthusiastic, expressed general support. The Council of State raised no significant legal objections to the bill.
In other words, all the legal indicators were green. The rejection by the Commission appears to be more political than legal or technical in nature.
Beyond legal experts, a vast majority of the Belgian population supports allowing animal protection NGOs to take legal action. An IPSOS survey conducted in November 2024 for GAIA revealed that 79% of Belgians believe these associations should be able to file complaints in cases of abuse or violations of animal welfare laws. Only 7% were opposed.
Furthermore, 72% of respondents believe that elected officials should actively support such a bill. The Justice Commission’s vote directly contradicts the will of a large majority of citizens.
To influence the legislative process, 55 animal protection organizations, led by GAIA, signed an open letter addressed to parliament members. The letter argued in favor of the bill, highlighting its importance for effectively protecting animals. Despite this united front, the majority parties refused to respond. Their silence is perceived by the signatories as a sign of disregard for their field work and expertise.
This refusal to recognize a legal role for these associations is a major step backward. It further isolates animals who are victims of violence—animals who rely on these associations to have their suffering acknowledged and for justice to be served.
By excluding them, one of the few bridges between animal suffering and the legal system is cut. In practice, this may encourage abusers to act without fear, taking advantage of a legal loophole.
This case highlights a growing gap between public expectations and political decisions. It also illustrates the limits of a judicial system that struggles to recognize animals as sentient beings worthy of real protection.
As long as specialized associations remain excluded from legal proceedings, animal welfare laws risk remaining meaningless. And those who tirelessly defend the voiceless will have to continue doing so without any real legal support.
And Here’s the List of Political Parties and Their Votes:
Supported the bill:
4 members of DEFI, Ecolo/Groen, Vlaams Belang
Rejected the bill:
8 members of MR, Les Engagés, N-VA, cd&v, Open VLD, Vooruit
Abstinences: PS, PTB-PVDA
Let’s not give up. Our voices count too, and every citizen has the right to file a complaint if they witness animal abuse. Let’s continue to stand together for animal welfare!
Meanwhile, in neighboring France and most European countries, animal protection organizations have the right to bring abusers to justice; animals even have their own lawyers! A model Belgium does not deem relevant to follow.
Animal Defenders Silenced
The Justice Commission of the Chamber recently rejected a bill supported by the parties Groen and DéFI, which aimed to allow animal protection organizations like GAIA and Animal Rights to become civil parties in cases of animal abuse. The proposal was rejected with 10 votes against, none in favor, and 3 abstentions. This refusal follows a ruling by the Court of Cassation on June 11, 2024, which had already significantly limited the legal avenues available to these organizations.
The Controversial Ruling of the Court of Cassation
In its June 2024 decision, the Court of Cassation ruled that animal protection associations do not have a “sufficient personal interest” to become civil parties in abuse cases. This legal reasoning excludes these organizations from the judicial system: they can no longer trigger investigations through a magistrate, no longer have access to case files, and can no longer be recognized as victims—even though they play a vital watchdog role on the ground.
This interpretation of Article 17 of the Judicial Code is far from unanimous. It has been called absurd and dangerous by many legal scholars and academics, who fear it will lead to an increase in cases being dismissed without prosecution in instances of animal cruelty.
A Vital Voice Silenced
Michel Vandenbosch, president of GAIA, calls the situation dramatic: “Many convictions for animal abuse have only happened because of our complaints. Today, we are being muzzled legally.” He decries this as a major regression for animal welfare, believing that this exclusion effectively grants impunity to abusers. To him, the message from the political class is clear: animals don’t matter.
GAIA emphasizes that its interventions don’t replace those of the judiciary, but rather complement them. These associations fill the gaps in a legal system that is often too slow or unwilling to pursue certain abuse cases.
A Gift to Abusers
The Court’s ruling is seen as a gift to those who mistreat animals. Up to now, by being able to become civil parties, associations maintained pressure on judicial authorities, played a watchdog role, and tangibly advanced the animal cause. Their exclusion is likely to have real consequences: more dismissed cases, unpunished offenders, and a rise in abuse cases.
This imbalance is all the more striking when compared to environmental NGOs, which have long been allowed to act in court. The Court of Cassation appears to apply double standards—one for nature defenders, another for animal protectors.
Supportive Experts… Ignored
The Justice Commission’s rejection of the bill comes despite numerous positive signals from legal experts. During parliamentary hearings on October 22 and December 10, 2024, several legal professionals spoke in favor of the reform. The College of Public Prosecutors, though not overly enthusiastic, expressed general support. The Council of State raised no significant legal objections to the bill.
In other words, all the legal indicators were green. The rejection by the Commission appears to be more political than legal or technical in nature.
A Decision Against the Will of the People
Beyond legal experts, a vast majority of the Belgian population supports allowing animal protection NGOs to take legal action. An IPSOS survey conducted in November 2024 for GAIA revealed that 79% of Belgians believe these associations should be able to file complaints in cases of abuse or violations of animal welfare laws. Only 7% were opposed.
Furthermore, 72% of respondents believe that elected officials should actively support such a bill. The Justice Commission’s vote directly contradicts the will of a large majority of citizens.
An Open Letter from 55 NGOs Ignored
To influence the legislative process, 55 animal protection organizations, led by GAIA, signed an open letter addressed to parliament members. The letter argued in favor of the bill, highlighting its importance for effectively protecting animals. Despite this united front, the majority parties refused to respond. Their silence is perceived by the signatories as a sign of disregard for their field work and expertise.
A Worrying Step Back for Animal Welfare
This refusal to recognize a legal role for these associations is a major step backward. It further isolates animals who are victims of violence—animals who rely on these associations to have their suffering acknowledged and for justice to be served.
By excluding them, one of the few bridges between animal suffering and the legal system is cut. In practice, this may encourage abusers to act without fear, taking advantage of a legal loophole.
Yet Animals Are Recognized as Sentient Beings
This case highlights a growing gap between public expectations and political decisions. It also illustrates the limits of a judicial system that struggles to recognize animals as sentient beings worthy of real protection.
As long as specialized associations remain excluded from legal proceedings, animal welfare laws risk remaining meaningless. And those who tirelessly defend the voiceless will have to continue doing so without any real legal support.
And Here’s the List of Political Parties and Their Votes:
Supported the bill:
4 members of DEFI, Ecolo/Groen, Vlaams Belang
Rejected the bill:
8 members of MR, Les Engagés, N-VA, cd&v, Open VLD, Vooruit
Abstinences: PS, PTB-PVDA
We, the Citizens, Can Still Act!
Let’s not give up. Our voices count too, and every citizen has the right to file a complaint if they witness animal abuse. Let’s continue to stand together for animal welfare!
