Introduction

The European Declaration of Animal Rights (EDAR) was realeased on 17 February 2025, with 443 signatures to date, among which nearly 100 NGOs. The EDAR offers a glimpse of progress, aiming to legally establish animal personhood and recognize first animal rights. Spearheaded by a group of French researchers led by Pr. Jean-Pierre Marguénaud, this initiative aims to create a stronger legal framework that reflects growing societal concerns for animals across European citizens. 

1. The Declaration’s Key Points

1.1. The EDAR following the UDAR

The EDAR follows decades of animal rights advocacy and the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights (UDAR), also drafted by a group of French researchers and proclaimed at UNESCO in 1978— without legal standing or adoption so far.

So what changes bring a new animal rights declaration for Europe? According to the authors, the EDAR aims to answer the growing demand from European citizens for stronger protection of animals. Our previous WAJ-led research has previously highlighted the wide disparity of animal anti-cruelty laws and sanctions across EU countries, as well as between constitutional -or absence thereof- of animal protections  (WAJ’s Research Europe 2024). 

With conceptual and structural refinements and reinforcements, along with a strategically robust advocacy campaign, the EDAR could have the potential to serve as a guidance for judges and legislative bodies, ultimately influencing legal protections for animals in Europe. However, guiding the broader body of animal law within the Council of Europe and the European Union will require a sustained and well-planned strategy. While Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) acknowledges animals as sentient beings, it allows member states significant discretion in determining which activities—often based on religious, cultural or regional considerations—fall within their regulatory scope.

1.2. Addressing Animal Cruelty—But Not Animal Killing

The EDAR categorizes cruelty as intentional acts or indifference to ‘extreme suffering’ (left open for interpretation). Notably, it recognizes cruelty as both acts of commission and omission, echoing some existing legal provisions like France’s penal code on animal abuse (Art.521-1). However, the declaration stops short of acknowledging an animal’s right to life. It does not challenge the exploitation and killing of animals for human purposes, particularly in food production, where France remains one of Europe’s top producers. This suggests a cautious welfarist approach rather than a transformative rights-based framework ultimately advocating for the abolition of animal exploitation.

2. Advancements Across Animal Categories

The EDAR does not define ‘animals’ but categorizes animals into specific groups with distinct protections.
Its provisions, if coming into effect while transformed into legally-binding regulations, could eventually lead to the following: 

2.1. Companion Animals (Arts.4, 5)

• Ban on abandonment
  This notion is already widely recognized in european anti-cruelty laws, like in France’s Rural Code Art. L521-1.
• Recognition of the human-animal bond.
  The EDAR’s coordinator Prof Marguénaud has long worked for the recognition of this human-animal bond in private law.  
• Guarantee of a lifespan that respects natural longevity.

2.2. Farm Animals (Arts.2, 3)

• Ban on living conditions incompatible with biological and behavioral needs.
  This notion is already recognized in France since 1976 and included in France’s Rural Code, Art.L.214-1.
• Mandatory compliance with the five fundamental freedoms.
  The five freedoms are widely recognized in Europe and stated in the Art. 7.1.2. (al.2) of the Terrestrial Code of WOAH.
  
• Prohibition of slaughter without prior stunning.
  Such a prohibition has been validated by the European Court of Human Rights for Belgium in 2024 (ECHR Ruling 2024.
  
  This declaration could serve as an inspiration for legislative reforms in the field of animal slaughter, aligning with public expectations as shown by the Eurobarometer 2023 survey, where 92% of French citizens supported stronger protections.
  

2.3. Animals in Scientific Research (Art.6)

• Ban on experiments causing permanent loss of sensitivity.
• Penalizes the failure to explore alternatives.
  This recalls the 3Rs principle ‘Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement’ (Europa) but not penalizing unnecessary testing.

2.4. Animals in Entertainment (Arts.2, 7)

• Ban on performances causing suffering.
  This could lead to delete the exception of Art.521-1 of the French Penal Code, allowing bullfighting and cockfighting.

2.5. Wild Animals and Their Habitats (Arts.8, 9, 12)

• Restrictions on removing wild animals from their natural habitat. 
  The Antibes orcas transferred to Tenerife exemplifies this need. The EDAR calls for sanctuaries and France has the world’s second-largest maritime area (after the US) but still, it is lacking specific cetacean sanctuaries (C’est Assez Open-letter).
• State obligation to prevent species extinction.
• Recognition of wild species’ distinct legal personality.
• Right to an unpolluted environment and natural life cycle.

3. Legal Personhood, Education, and Institutional Representation

3.1. Legal Personhood (Arts.10, 11, 12)

The EDAR introduces the concept of the animal legal personhood sui generis, meaning it is unique and of its own kind.
This raises several questions: Is this form of legal personhood situated between human personhood and property, as previously proposed by Suzanne Antoine? Does it represent a type of moral personhood or a technical one, as suggested by Professor Marguénaud? Or does it constitute a new category of animal legal personhood that has yet to be clearly identifed? These questions remain subjects of extensive discussions among researchers and academics in the field of animal law.

This legal personhood’s direct correlative is gradually granting specific rights to animals without imposing obligations or duties upon them. This model establishes animals as rights-holders and subjects of law similar to children or disabled humans holding rights without legal obligations.

It distinguishes wild animals living in natural freedom, particularly those considered elements of nature or totemic species, as potential beneficiaries of legal personhood. A precedent can be found in the case of the sharks and turtles in New Caledonia’s Loyalty Islands, where legal personhood could have enabled their representation in Court if this recognition had been validated rather than overruled by the Administrative Court of New Caledonia, cancelling this decision (Le Monde, 2023).

The EDAR thus positions legal personhood as a tool for securing more effective protections beyound cruelty exceptions, providing a foundation for legislative evolution that could eventually extend to broader activities involving animal suffering.

3.2. Education and Awareness Raising (Art.14)

The last section of the EDAR is dedicated to education and training about animal sentience, reflecting the critical role of public awareness in long-term cultural change. By integrating respect for animals into school-to-university curricula, the EDAR aims to foster a society where animal welfare is a shared priority (as adopted in France since 2021 in Art.L312-15 of the Education Code).

3.3. Constitutionalisation of Animal Protection (Art.10)
The EDAR calls for comprehensive penal, administrative, civil, and constitutional protection of animals. While most European countries have penal and administrative animal laws, only seven —Slovenia, Switzerland, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, Italy, and Belgium—have constitutional provisions protecting animals (WAJ’s Research Europe 2024). This highlights the need for constitutional enshrinement of animal protection in other European nations, including France where efforts to incorporate animals into the Constitution are led by our WAJ partner Humanisma. 

3.4. Institutional Representation: The Animal Defender (Art.13)

The Animal Defender, an independent administrative authority, would centralize enforcement of animal rights, akin to France’s Defender of Rights. Some European countries have animal ombudsmen, such as Austria (since 1990), Germany (Baden-Württemberg), and Switzerland (Zurich, since 2007). However, the impacts of these “Animal Defenders” impact varies widely: Austria’s ombudsman primarily advises but lacks enforcement power, while Zurich’s office has been instrumental in bringing cases to court (Zurich Ombudsman Report, 2023). 

4. Conclusion

The European Declaration of Animal Rights marks a milestone in strengthening animal protection across Europe. By advocating for a unique legal personhood (sui generis) for sentient animals, it paves the way for future legal recognition of their first rights—rights that will need clearer definitions- and stronger penal protections (such as bans on blood sports and slaughter without pre-stunning in countries like in France where this Declaration is born). For meaningful change, these principles must be enshrined at the constitutional level in all European countries.

While the declaration’s concrete impact will depend on the political and judicial will to use it as a reference, it has the potential to be a guiding framework for advancing animal protection. In European nations where animals are already protected across administrative, penal, civil, and constitutional levels, the next logical step from the EDAR will be to grant legal personhood and first legal rights to animals. The question remains: will the most progressive European countries lead the way for this new legal personhood and animal rights?

Key Takeaways from EDAR

• Leveraging Existing Legal Protections:
  The EDAR builds upon existing legal protections against animal cruelty while pushing for stronger safeguards. It challenges practices like bullfighting, cockfighting, and slaughter without pre-stunning in countries like France where it has been drafted and where such acts are still legally allowed.
• Legal Protection Across Multiple Legal Fields:
  The declaration sets the need to enshrine animal protection across administrative, penal, civil, and constitutional levels, especially in countries lacking constitutional recognition of animal protection; while recalling the importance of education and the imperative to teach animal sentience from school to university as to shape a more respectful and compassionate society.
• Question about the Animal Defender Role:
  The EDAR proposes the creation of an independent Animal Defender authority, who can be similar to ombudsmen in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. While some of these ombudsmen primarily serve as advisory bodies, others (like Zurich’s Animal Ombudsman) have enforcement powers and bring cases to court. The EDAR’s success could depend on whether this role is purely symbolic or legally empowered to investigate complaints and take action against animal rights violations.
• Legal Personhood sui generis for Animals:
  The EDAR introduces sui generis legal personhood for animals, granting them progressive rights without imposing legal obligations on them. This positions animals similarly to legally protected vulnerable groups, like children or disabled individuals.
• Incremental but Limited Progress for animals:
  The EDAR marks a step forward for mentioning animal rights but without mentioning the rights concerned. Indeed, it stops short of addressing the systemic abuses in factory farming, experiment without alternatives, cruel hunting, breeding or transport methods, and other exploitative practices. Therefore, we can conclude that it is more a bridge of a ‘welfarist towards rights’ instrument rather than a transformative rights-based framework.
• Missed Opportunity for Strong Animal Rights:
  The EDAR falls short of demands from animal advocates like World Animal Justice pushing for higher legal recognition and protection of animal rights—ensuring animals’ fundamental interests in living, being free, and being well-treated across all contexts and fundamentally challenging animal exploitation.
• Uncertain Impact & Need for Advocacy:
  The EDAR’s remains of non-legally binding nature and its legal implications remain uncertain, requiring NGO involvement to push for it to be used by legislators and judges as a reference for banning cruel practices and enshrining animal protection into constitutions.
• Need for Definitions for “animals” and “animal rights”:
   The declaration fails to define “animals,” leaving ambiguity on whether it applies to all sentient beings – including which invertebrates- and to what extent? This hinders clarity regarding its scope of application. More importantly, we would need that the rights for animals announced in the declaration title would be clarified in order to set constructive foundations for such rights. 
  

The EDAR is a valuable yet cautious initiative to advance animal protection laws in Europe. It opens the door to legal personhood and incremental rights for animals but misses the opportunity to go further with the recognition of the fundamental rights for animals to live, be free and well-treated in all contexts. Its implications will depend on the strategy set forth for it not to be just another symbolic “declaration of animal rights” but a real guidance in judicial and legislative frameworks across Europe.