The Animal Welfare Act: Shortcomings in Monitoring, Enforcement and Animal Protection
Germany is regarded worldwide as a particularly progressive country when it comes to the welfare of animals. Protecting animals, particularly those in human care, is enshrined as a state objective in German Basic Law. The Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz) is often portrayed as one of the strictest and best in the world1. However, what sounds good in theory and on paper does not reflect reality. Much can be claimed in documentation. However, animals in Germany – particularly those in the livestock sector – are by no means afforded adequate protection: not from diseases and suffering caused by their living conditions, not from cruel breeding practices, and not from being killed for purely economic reasons2.When such practices are permitted by animal protection laws, there is an enormous need for action.
Who We Are – Animal Society is a non-profit organisation dedicated to advocating for the rights and interests of animals and encouraging society and politics to end animal suffering. Through our educational efforts and political campaigns, we create transparency to establish effective animal policy. More
The Animal Welfare Act itself allows for numerous exceptions designed to legitimise the infliction of suffering or pain. It is very clear that the Act was drafted with the profit-driven interests of the animal industry in mind.
Furthermore, in the practical application and enforcement of the law, it is evident that the Animal Welfare Act – which is in itself inadequate – is not being implemented through either adequate inspections or strict enforcement. There is a lack of monitoring and enforcement in animal welfare law: limited farm inspections, few criminal charges, hardly any convictions and low penalties. The protective mechanisms intended for animals under the law are barely having any effect.
No other area of law is treated as negligently as animal welfare. All animals suffer as a result, with the shortcomings being most evident in the case of farm animals.
The victims are unable to enforce their rights to protection themselves. Written law is systematically flouted, whilst society largely tolerates this abuse or remains unaware of it.
What Does the Animal Welfare Act Say?
The rearing, slaughter and transport of farm animals are regulated by the German Animal Welfare Act. More specific provisions can also be found in several national and European regulations.
For example, these include:
- The EU Slaughter Regulation3
- The EU Animal Transport Regulation4
- Livestock Animal Welfare Regulation5
- Slaughter Animal Welfare Regulation6
- The Animal Transport Welfare Regulation7
The problem is that some of these regulations contradict the Animal Welfare Act. In other cases, they impose much lower requirements than those outlined in the general Section 2 of the Act8.
Section 17 of the Animal Welfare Act (§ 17 TierSchG)
‘Any person who
1. kills a vertebrate animal without reasonable cause, or
2. causes a vertebrate animal
a) significant pain or suffering out of cruelty, or
b) prolonged or repeated pain or suffering, shall be liable to imprisonment for up to three years or a fine.’
The terms given in this section of the Act are noticeably vague. ‘Reasonable cause’, ‘cruelty’, ‘significant’, ‘suffering’, ‘prolonged’: none of these legal terms are defined in law and therefore allow for a very broad scope of interpretation. The inadequate enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act is linked, amongst other things, to these vague terms9.
The task of determining the legal classification of these terms is often delegated by judges and public prosecutors to veterinary surgeons acting as expert witnesses. However, the latter frequently lack the expertise required to give concrete meaning to these legal terms.
Section 18 of the Animal Welfare Act (§ 18 TierSchG)
Section 18 of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG) sets out a list of administrative offences relating to breaches of animal welfare requirements. However, in practice, there is often a misunderstanding regarding the relationship between Sections 17 and 18 of the Animal Welfare Act.
Section 18 of the Animal Welfare Act is worded very specifically, describing specific cases of breaches. Where such cases arise, the much more broadly worded Section 17 of the Animal Welfare Act is often not considered by experts called to give testimony. However, Section 17 of the Animal Welfare Act would also apply in many cases and would in fact take precedence over the administrative offence.10
Who Monitors Breaches of Animal Welfare Legislation?
Under Section 15 of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG)¹¹, competent state authorities are legally responsible for monitoring breaches of animal welfare legislation. The duties are described in greater detail in the veterinary legislation of the individual federal states¹².¹²
However, it has become apparent that the relevant state institutions often fail to fulfil their duties adequately. Increasingly, private individuals, animal rights activists and whistleblowers are taking on this role – with the difference that it is often illegal for them to do so.
Inspections by Veterinary Authorities
Under Section 15 of the Animal Welfare Act, responsibility lies with the relevant state authorities — typically local veterinary offices, overseen by an official veterinarian.
A key responsibility of these authorities is to perform regular routine inspections of facilities that house animals. These inspections are intended to prevent animal welfare offences and enable the detection of incidents by chance.
In addition, they also carry out random inspections. These may take place if animal welfare offences have previously been reported to the veterinary office or the police. Such inspections also take place, for example, as part of planning permission procedures13.
Inspections may either be scheduled in advance or surprise checks. The Veterinary Office itself determines which premises are to be inspected. In doing so, it adopts a risk-based approach: premises that have already come to its attention are to be inspected as a priority14.
In reality however, these inspections are extremely rare in Germany. A response from the Federal Government in 2018 revealed that a livestock farms are only inspected, on average, every 17 years 15.
Farms with animals are inspected even less frequently in Bavaria: inspections there take place on average only once every 48.1 years.
Table: Overview of the average inspection intervals for farms keeping ‘livestock’ in the 16 federal states16
| Federal State | Number of Business that Require Inspection | Average Time Between Inspections |
| Baden-Württemberg | 82,698 | 19.3 years |
| Bayern | 147,791 | 48.1 years |
| Berlin | 167 | 2.6 years |
| Brandenburg | 16,198 | 16.4 years |
| Bremen | 489 | 7.9 years |
| Hamburg | 467 | 7.3 years |
| Hessen | 45,708 | 13.8 years |
| Mecklenburg-Vorpommern | 23,692 | 19.6 years |
| Niedersachsen | 95,054 | 21 years |
| Nordrhein-Westfalen | 75,605 | 14.7 years |
| Rheinland-Pfalz | 19,769 | 15.5 years |
| Saarland | 1,734 | 7.3 years |
| Sachsen | 38,924 | 9.9 years |
| Sachsen-Anhalt | 51,058 | 24.4 years |
| Schleswig-Holstein | 39,752 | 37.3 years |
| Thüringen | 2,918 | 9.5 years |
It is not only animal welfare campaigners who are criticising the lack of inspections. As early as 2015, the Scientific Advisory Board of the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) recommended, in a report, more frequent and more effective animal welfare inspections17.
Why is There a Lack of Oversight in Animal Welfare?
There are many reasons for the scarcity and inadequacy of inspections:
- A lack of financial and human resources: According to the president of the Federal Association of Civil Servant Vets (BbT), there is a shortfall of around 2,000 posts nationwide to meet the demand for inspections18
- Overburdening due to a wide range of responsibilities: Veterinary authorities are responsible not only for animal welfare monitoring but also for consumer protection and food safety; within the remit of animal welfare, they are responsible for wild animals, ‘pet animals’, animals in the entertainment industry and farm animals.
- No overarching federal guidelines on the frequency of inspections: Given the wide range of tasks involved, farm inspections can easily be postponed because there are no regulations stipulating how frequently they must take place.19
- Animal welfare law is only a very small part of veterinary training: The implementation of the Animal Welfare Act relies heavily on the initiative of individual vets.20
- Financial strain on local authorities due to the burden of official inspections: As early as 2011, the Federal Audit Office criticised the fact that the decentralised structure of inspections (with responsibility lying with the federal states and local authorities) was no longer suited to the increasingly complex and international value chains.21
- Time limitations: Administrative intervention, such as ordering the removal of animals, is extremely time-consuming. Not only must the facts of the case be investigated and official notices drafted, but the rehoming of the animals must also be ensured.22
- Career disadvantages: In a 2022 study, the official veterinarians surveyed also frequently stated that they feared career disadvantages if they pursued animal welfare breaches with determination. It is not uncommon for this to lead to bullying or even transfers of employment.23
- Political pressure and lobbying: Many farms are important to the regional economy and have strong political connections. Political pressure on the authorities can therefore have a negative impact on their willingness to report breaches.24
- Dependency on community relationships: Vets and animal owners in villages know each other, and in some cases are even friends. Another problem is that the vets providing treatment are dependent on their clients in the agricultural sector. If a farm is reported to the veterinary authority, this can easily be traced back to the vet’s visit. In such cases, there is a risk of losing important clients.
- Obstructions, threats and even attacks on official veterinary officers by farmers.25
It is also worth noting that many veterinary practitioners believe that the consistent enforcement of penalties for animal welfare breaches could jeopardise the viability and profitability of the agricultural sector.26 Given the numerous video recordings emerging from livestock housing facilities, that show animal welfare breaches, this conclusion seems obvious.
However, the fact that official veterinary officers often draw the conclusion that it is better not to pursue such breaches highlights a fundamental problem. In order to ensure that the welfare of animals is taken seriously and that there will be repercussions for law violations in this sector, the system of animal husbandry must change.
If a system contravenes the laws we have imposed on ourselves, then that system should be adapted as it is clearly inadequate. A constitutional state thrives on compliance with its own regulations. If these cannot be met, appropriate measures must be taken (amendments to the law, stricter controls).
Undercover Investigations: ‘Break-Ins’ to Uncover Cases of Animal Cruelty
Whistleblowers, animal welfare organisations and animal rights activists are responding to this lack of oversight. Aware of the injustices that occur on a daily basis and the resulting sense of powerlessness caused by the authorities’ failure to act, they carry out undercover investigations and document their findings.
Animal rights activists are attempting to create records of the unspeakable suffering in animal husbandry facilities. Many have found that complaints without photographic evidence are not taken seriously.
A state that is unable to uphold its own objectives and rules is failing to fulfil its responsibilities and must expect civil society to demand that it does so. People risk being criminalised and are forced to resort to illegal means, even though they are simply demanding compliance with existing law.
What is often overlooked in the heated debate is that animal rights activists frequently commit legal offences only in response to existing breaches of the law. Their trespass is motivated by violations of current law – namely, animal welfare legislation.
This was also the view of the Higher Regional Court of Naumburg in its acquittal of three activists. The judges classified the trespass as reasonable: the activists acted in a state of justifiable emergency.²⁷
Unauthorised entry into livestock sheds often constitutes trespass. These entries are frequently, and incorrectly, referred to as ‘break-ins’. As a general rule, however, there is no need for a break-in in the criminal law sense. Sheds and barns are usually left unlocked due to fire safety regulations.
The public prosecutors’ offices themselves are often reluctant to ‘cooperate’ with animal rights activists. This is despite the fact that it is due to these activists that a large proportion of animal welfare issues and violations are exposed.
Enforcement: Are Breaches of Animal Welfare Laws Prosecuted?
A fundamental problem is that Section 17 of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG) is an ‘offence subject to inspection’. The animals concerned are not victims capable of speaking out on their own behalf and cannot file criminal complaints themselves. The prosecution of offences therefore depends on there being sufficient inspections.28
Offences can only be detected where inspections take place. Otherwise, animals suffer in silence and in secret. Only when people take a closer look can animal welfare offences be identified and punished.
The law enforcement authorities are therefore reliant, for the purposes of prosecution, on veterinary authorities carrying out inspections or on animal welfare organisations and private individuals filing criminal complaints and providing information. As described, there is already a shortcoming in these processes.
However, investigations have shown that even in the few cases where violations identified during inspections are prosecuted, there are shortcomings in enforcement. Cases being dropped and sentences that are often very lenient when compared to other criminal offences.
How Do Veterinary Authorities Deal with Animal Welfare Offences?
There are various courses of action that official veterinary officers can take if breaches are identified. The authority itself initiates administrative proceedings. Measures under Section 16 of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG) may be considered, such as the removal of the animals and their rehousing, or the revocation of an animal-keeping licence.
For criminal proceedings to be initiated, the veterinary authorities must lodge a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor’s office. A study revealed that, among the animal welfare cases analysed, not a single criminal case arose from a routine inspection. Criminal proceedings arose exclusively from random inspections carried out in response to tips-off or complaints. 29 However, in 20% of the (rare) routine inspections, animal welfare breaches were identified. It can therefore be concluded that the number of unreported animal welfare offences is much higher.30
Despite this rate of non-compliance, administrative offences or criminal charges were brought in only 1,220 out of 6,117 cases.31
Any breaches that are identified are often, if at all, dealt with solely under administrative law. This means that only conditions are imposed or the animals are taken into care, but no criminal proceedings are initiated. Many vets see no point in filing a criminal complaint, viewing it merely as a waste of time. After all, filing a criminal complaint does not, in the first instance, help the animals concerned. For this reason, from a veterinary perspective, removing the animals in accordance with Section 16 of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG), for example, initially makes more sense.32
The problem is that this makes inadequate animal owners feel secure when they keep or treat animals in a manner contrary to the Animal Welfare Act. As a result, criminal law on animal welfare has little effect in terms of general prevention. In turn, people are not deterred from committing such offences by the strict and visible prosecution of such acts. Deterrence and prevention of specific behaviours, however, is one of the most important functions of the law.
Overall, the veterinary authorities are very reluctant to bring charges. Large-scale operations are rarely prosecuted. Another possible reason for this is that in the event of a prosecutions it would be necessary to rehouse the animals in the case. However, particularly in large-scale operations, this is often not at all possible due to the large numbers of animals involved and would entail enormous costs.33 Often, the financial resources for this are simply not available.
Alongside staff shortages and excessive workloads, a lack of time is also a pervasive issue within the veterinary industry: administrative intervention, such as ordering the removal of animals, is extremely time-consuming.
Furthermore, veterinary professionals may be reluctant to report animal keepers whom they have inspected on numerous previous occasions. Many naturally fear that they might be implicating themselves in misconduct by reporting such cases, as they feel they should have intervened earlier.34
What is happening at the public prosecutor’s offices and among judges?
Criminal charges are rarely brought in cases of animal welfare offences. However, even when an offence is deemed serious enough by the authorities, not much usually happens afterwards.
Low Risk of Punishment
Time and again, it becomes apparent that, in the vast majority of cases, no preliminary investigation is even initiated, or that the public prosecutor’s office subsequently decides not to bring charges.35
In order to open a criminal investigation, there must be what is known as ‘Anfangsverdacht’ (initial suspicion). The thresholds for this are not actually very high: there must be ‘sufficient factual grounds’ to suggest that criminal offences have been committed.36
According to research, public prosecutors’ offices set too high a standard for the existence of a prima facie case under criminal law relating to animal welfare. In one case, for example, the public prosecutor’s office rejected photographic evidence that had been submitted on the grounds that the photographs merely depicted a snapshot in time, which did not provide the certainty required for evidence that a criminal offence had been committed.37
This shifts the burden of the investigation onto the person making the report. After all, it is the public prosecutor’s office’s responsibility to establish with certainty that a criminal offence has been committed. During the preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor’s office would have to establish whether there is sufficient suspicion of an offence to justify bringing charges.38 And even when penalties are imposed in animal welfare cases, they are very lenient.39 Bans on keeping animals are almost never imposed.
Each year, there are around 700 convictions in criminal proceedings for animal cruelty. In 93% of these cases, fines are imposed. There were just 50 convictions resulting in custodial sentences in 2016 – only four of which were not suspended.40 A comparison with the outcomes of criminal proceedings for property offences shows just how little animal welfare law is taken seriously: the rate at which custodial sentences without probation are imposed for property offences, such as embezzlement, is more than ten times higher than for animal welfare offences41 – despite the same sentencing guidelines and therefore the same legal options
Animal welfare is enshrined as a national objective in the German Constitution. Furthermore, Section 90a of the Civil Code (BGB) makes it clear that animals are not objects42 and are protected by specific legislation. However, given the lack of prosecution for offences in which animals are the victims, it is evident – particularly when compared with property offences – that animals are treated less favourably than human property.
Why Are There So Few Prosecutions From Animal Welfare Cases?
One reason for the inadequate enforcement of criminal animal welfare law lies in legal education. Animal welfare law is not covered either during undergraduate studies or during legal training. Prosecutors and judges are simply not familiar with animal welfare legislation.
Nor are there any incentives for them to acquire specialist knowledge in this field, as there are no career opportunities here. Animal welfare legislation is generally not taken very seriously, even though animal welfare is enshrined as a national objective in the Basic Law.
Another reason is the speciesism that continues in large sections of society. Although animals are sentient beings and, as victims of criminal offences also suffer direct physical consequences, property offences are prosecuted much more rigorously and harshly than animal welfare offences.
Animals in the agricultural sector are particularly affected by speciesism. The value-laden distinction between ‘farm animals’ and ‘pets’ also has implications under criminal law.
Whilst the approach towards pet animals remains relatively strict, a completely different standard applies to animals exploited for agricultural purposes.
“If a dog is left in a car for several hours in hot weather, criminal proceedings are brought; if cattle are transported for days in hot weather in breach of numerous provisions of the Animal Transport Regulations, the case is usually dropped without any investigation.”43
Furthermore, unlike in other areas of law, there are no dedicated departments within public prosecutors’ offices for animal welfare cases, nor are there any criminal divisions specialising in animal welfare. Such a division of responsibilities would, however, be sensible. It would enable public prosecutors to familiarise themselves with the subject much more effectively and to build up experience and specialist knowledge of the Animal Welfare Act.
In Germany, there is only one central authority dealing with criminal cases relating to animal welfare: the Oldenburg Public Prosecutor’s Office, which specialises in criminal offences in the agricultural sector. However, even this office has been accused of conducting inadequate investigations and dropping numerous cases.44,45
Who is Prosecuted for Animal Welfare Offences?
It is also important to note that the majority of those accused in such proceedings are employees or owners of small businesses. Managing directors and owners of large companies, as well as animal welfare officers at abattoirs and other senior managers, are rarely accountable for offences.
The problem in these circumstances is the difficulty in providing proof of wrongdoing on the part of these individuals. Prosecution of senior managers is only possible if repeated and obvious malpractices can be substantiated. However, this requires either short-term or long-term surveillance.46 Furthermore, German criminal law is geared more towards involvement in specific offences rather than responsibility for structural shortcomings.47
There is a distinct lack of investigations into official veterinary officers themselves. Yet criminal liability for failure to act would likely often be applicable, as it can be argued that official veterinary officers have duty of care towards animals and their wellbeing.48
The Demands of Animal Society
We want to establish a society in which the interests of all animals are represented. Consequently, a fundamental reform of animal welfare legislation is essential. This must take place not only in terms of the substance of the legislation, but also with regard to monitoring mechanisms and enforcement.
One of the hallmarks of a state governed by the rule of law is that the laws we enact are actually observed. Enshrining social and ethical convictions in law and then failing to uphold them renders the fundamental principles of our democracy meaningless.
On paper, we can claim to uphold ethical principles, but ultimately we must be judged by our actual actions. As far as the protection of the animals who live among us is concerned, it is fair to say that so far, we have failed ethically and legally.
In principle, the existing Animal Welfare Act is already inadequate, as it permits animals to be killed and injured. However, even with far-reaching improvements to its content, animals would not necessarily be better protected due to a lack of effective enforcement of these laws.
The current implementation of animal welfare legislation is open to criticism. The German Ethics Council shares this view: “There is no area that is dealt with as hypocritically as criminal law relating to animal welfare”.49
It can be concluded that the interests of animals, which are infringed upon by a breach of Section 17 of the Animal Welfare Act, are currently greatly undervalued by both the administrative and judicial authorities. The interest of animals in living free from torment, pain and significant suffering is not accorded the high priority it needs.
We therefore call for the following measures to effectively address the shortcomings in monitoring and enforcement in the field of animal welfare50,51:
- Incorporation of Section 17 of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG) into the Criminal Code (StGB), so that the provision could become part of the basic training for legal professionals and gain greater visibility and awareness; this could also serve to enhance general prevention
- Increased financial and human resources for veterinary authorities
- Increase in the penalty range under Section 17 of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG) to up to 5 years’ imprisonment
- Extension of the penalty range in cases involving organised criminal groups or commercial exploitation
- Animal welfare law as part of the training for veterinary surgeons
- Animal welfare departments within public prosecutors’ offices; further training for public prosecutors and judges in animal welfare law
- Federal and state animal welfare commissioners who oversee the veterinary authorities
- Introduction of a specific duty of care regarding animal welfare for public officials, animal keepers and transporters
- Establishment of an animal health database through which anomalies identified at abattoirs can be traced back to specific farms
FAQs
Who is Responsible for Enforcing the Animal Welfare Act?
The Animal Welfare Act should be enforced by the veterinary authorities. They are responsible for checking whether animal owners comply with the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. In addition, members of the public and animal rights campaigners monitor compliance with the Animal Welfare Act, as the authorities are failing to fulfil their duties adequately.
How Often Are Facilities Inspected?
Inspections of livestock farms are carried out very rarely in Germany. On average across the country, a farm is inspected only once every 12.1 years. In Bavaria, the intervals between inspections are the longest: on average, the veterinary authority carries out an inspection only once every 48.1 years.
Why Do Animal Rights Activists Break into Facilities That House Animals?
Animal rights activists want to show the public how badly animals are treated in industrial livestock farming. They are often aware of breaches of the Animal Welfare Act and wish to document them in order to report them to the authorities. As the relevant authorities often fail to fulfil this duty, animal rights activists ensure that breaches of animal welfare legislation are identified and prosecuted.
Sources
[1] Eichner, M., Schlosser, J. (2019, 09.01.), Tierhaltung in Deutschland: Wunsch und Wirklichkeit, Heinrich Böll Stiftung (zuletzt aufgerufen am 14.03.2023).
[2] Botzki, A., Wolfschmidt, M., Foodwatch Report 2023, Tierleid im Einkaufskorb. Warum alle Haltungsformen Nutztiere krank machen und wie sich das ändern lässt.
[3] Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1099/2009 des Rates vom 24. September 2009 über den
Schutz von Tieren zum Zeitpunkt der Tötung.
[4]Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2005 des Rates vom 22. Dezember 2004 über den Schutz von Tieren beim Transport und damit zusammenhängenden Vorgängen sowie zur Änderung der Richtlinien 64/432/EWG und 93/119/EG und der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1255/97.
[8] Rechtsanwältin Bruhn, D., Rechtsanwalt Wollenteit, U. im Auftrag von Greenpeace e.V., Rechtsgutachten zur Frage der Vereinbarkeit der Haltungsvorgaben für Mastschweine mit
dem Tierschutzgesetz sowie zur Zulässigkeit einer Verschärfung der Haltungsvorgaben
[9] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 75.
[10] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 61.
[11] § 15 TierSchG.
[12] Beispiel Bayern: Gesetz über den gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz und das Veterinärwesen (GVVG) vom 24. Juli 2003 (GVBl. S. 452, 752, BayRS 2120-1-U/G).
[13] Eisenack, A. (2021, 16.11.), Wenn das Veterinäramt kontrolliert – So reagieren Sie richtig, agrarheute.de (21.02.2023).
[14] Bundesinformationszentrum Landwirtschaft, Wie oft werden tierhaltende Betriebe kontrolliert?, landwirtschaft.de (zuletzt aufgerufen am 21.02.2023).
[15] BT-Drs. 19/3195 vom 03.07.2018, Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Carina Konrad, Dr. Gero Clemens Hocker, Frank Sitta, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion der FDP – Drucksache 19/2820 – Vollzug von Tier- und Verbraucherschutzrecht.
[16] BT-Drs. 19/3195 vom 03.07.2018, Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Carina Konrad, Dr. Gero Clemens Hocker, Frank Sitta, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion der FDP – Drucksache 19/2820 – Vollzug von Tier- und Verbraucherschutzrecht, S. 6.
[17] Wissenschaftlicher Beirat für Agrarpolitik beim BMEL (2015), Wege zu einer gesellschaftlich akzeptierten Nutztierhaltung, Gutachten.
[18] Frühschütz, L. (2019, 22.5.), Tierhaltung außer Kontrolle – Welche Rolle Tierärzte spielen, Schrot & Korn, schrotundkorn.de (zuletzt aufgerufen am 22.02.2023).
[19] Frühschütz, L. (2019, 22.5.), Tierhaltung außer Kontrolle – Welche Rolle Tierärzte spielen, Schrot & Korn, schrotundkorn.de (zuletzt aufgerufen am 22.02.2023).
[20] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 54.
[21] Bundesrechnungshof (2011), Organisation des gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutzes (Schwerpunkt Lebensmittel), S. 114.
[22] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 57.
[23] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 57.
[24] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 57.
[25] Bülte, J., Felde, B., Maisack, C. (2022) Reform des Tierschutzrechts. Die Verwirklichung des Staatsziels Tierschutz de lege lata, S. 48.
[26] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 57.
[27] OLG Naumburg, Urteil vom 22. Februar 2018 – 2 Rv 157/17.
[28] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 48.
[29] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 51.
[30] Bülte, J., Felde, B., Maisack, C. (2022) Reform des Tierschutzrechts. Die Verwirklichung des Staatsziels Tierschutz de lege lata, S. 26.
[31] BT-Drucksache 19/3167 vom 18.07.2018, Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Friedrich Ostendorff, Harald Ebner, Matthias Gastel, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, Tierschutzkontrollen in der Landwirtschaft, S. 3.
[32] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 55.
[33] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 55.
[34] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 53.
[35] Bülte, J., Felde, B., Maisack, C. (2022) Reform des Tierschutzrechts. Die Verwirklichung des Staatsziels Tierschutz de lege lata, S. 30.
[36] § 152 StPO i.V.m. § 160 StPO.
[37] Hoven, E., Hahn, J., Tierschutzstrafrecht – Ein Überblick, JuS 2020, S. 823.
[38] § 170 Abs. 1 StPO.
[39] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 198.
[40] Hoven, E., Hahn, J., Tierschutzstrafrecht – Ein Überblick, JuS 2020, S. 823.
[41] Bülte, J., Felde, B., Maisack, C. (2022) Reform des Tierschutzrechts. Die Verwirklichung des Staatsziels Tierschutz de lege lata, S. 29.
[42] Allerdings werden auf Tiere die für Sachen geltenden Vorschriften angewendet.
[43] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 198.
[44] Schönherr, H.P. (2022, 13.12.), Soko Tierschutz zeigt Staatsanwalt an: „Hunderte Verfahren eingestellt“, taz.de (zuletzt aufgerufen am 27.02.2023).
[45] Buck, J.B. (2023, 28.02.), Staatsanwaltschaften im Fokus: Ministerium überprüft Arbeit, NDR, ndr.de (zuletzt aufgerufen am 06.03.2023).
[46] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 43.
[47] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 43.
[48] Thilo, A. (2020), Die Garantenstellung des Amtstierarztes. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der rechtsphilosophischen und empirischen Implikationen von § 17 Tierschutzgesetz, Dissertation, Universität Bonn, S. 85 ff.
[49] Dr. Steffen Augsberg, Deutscher Ethikrat, Stellungnahme des deutschen Ethikrates v.16.06.2020, S.17ff.; Statement von Prof. Dr. Alena Buyx v. 16.06.2020, Wissenschaftlicher Beirat für Agrarpolitik beim Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, Gutachten, „Wege zu einer gesellschaftlich akzeptier- ten Nutztierhaltung“, Zusammenfassung, S. 1.
[50] Hahn, J., Hoven, E. (2022), Strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Tierschutzkriminalität in der Landwirtschaft. Eine empirische Untersuchung, S. 176 ff.
[51] Bülte, J., Felde, B., Maisack, C. (2022) Reform des Tierschutzrechts. Die Verwirklichung des Staatsziels Tierschutz de lege lata