Turkey farming following the Federal Administrative Court’s ruling: What needs to be taken into account in future regarding Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act

The Federal Administrative Court has, for the first time, examined the requirements of Section 2(1) of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG) regarding the rearing of fattening turkeys. The written grounds for the decision are not yet available and will be decisive for a final assessment. Nevertheless, the ruling already provides indications of what turkey farmers should bear in mind in future when dealing with official inspections and potential orders.

The focus is on Section 2(1) of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG), which requires that animals be housed in a manner that is ‘appropriate’ to their species and needs and allows for natural behaviour.

To date, there has been no binding legal specification for turkey farming, for example in the Animal Welfare and Livestock Farming Ordinance. Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act is therefore applied directly and on a case-by-case basis.

Of fundamental importance here is the clarification by the Federal Administrative Court that the concept of ‘appropriateness’ requires a balancing of interests. The requirements for behaviourally appropriate housing must not be determined in isolation from an animal welfare perspective, but must take into account the legally protected economic interests of the animal keeper. Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG) is thus to be understood as a balancing provision that permits neither a blanket orientation towards idealised concepts nor a schematic tightening of husbandry requirements.

According to the ruling, the decisive point is the question of how these requirements are to be specified in concrete terms. The Federal Administrative Court stated that the nationally uniform guidelines for the rearing of fattening turkeys did not constitute a sufficient basis for conclusively determining the requirements of Section 2(1) of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG), particularly with regard to the animals’ rest and social behaviour. In this respect, there is a lack of derivation and justification for the individual husbandry parameters.

In practice, this means that although official orders under Section 16a of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG) are possible in individual cases, they require that inappropriate impairments to the animals’ basic behavioural needs be identified at the specific farm. It must be demonstrated on what technical and scientific basis the authorities have reached the assessment that supplementary orders are required, and why the intended measures are suitable and necessary to address these impairments. Generalised assessments or broad assumptions are not sufficient for this purpose.

The decisive factor is therefore the specific farm with its concrete husbandry conditions. Individual parameters cannot be considered in isolation from one another, but must always be assessed and weighed up in context.

The decision of the Federal Administrative Court is a case-by-case ruling and does not lead to generally binding guidelines for turkey farming, but it confirms that Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG) can be used as a standard of assessment if the conditions for an order by a veterinary office under Section 16a TierSchG are met in a specific case.

For turkey farmers, this means that animal welfare issues should be addressed early on and with due care. It is often during administrative proceedings that decisions are made regarding which factual findings are established and which standards are applied. A legal assessment as early as during hearings or in response to announced measures can help to focus attention on the necessary balancing of interests and the requirements for a technically sound justification.

It is important to closely monitor how the decision is implemented in practice. However, the following remains unchanged: Section 2(1) of the Animal Welfare Act (TierSchG) requires a specific examination of the individual case and a comprehensible justification for any official measure that interferes with existing husbandry systems.

BVerwG 3 C 2.25 – Judgment of 23 April 2026

Press release No. 28/2026, Federal Administrative Court