Higher Regional Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (OVG NRW): Tie stalling has limits – an obligation to provide outdoor exercise can be ordered even without express statutory provision.

In the case of tied stalling of cattle, measures to prevent husbandry-related health damage can be ordered even without special statutory regulations.

On the legal background: General clause of the Animal Welfare Act

The German Animal Welfare Act obligates animal keepers under § 2 TierSchG to keep their animalsin a manner appropriate to the species and meeting their needs. This includes ensuring that animals have sufficient exercise, can express their natural behaviour and are protected from avoidable pain. Even if there are no express statutory provisions for certain forms of husbandry – such as tied stalling of adult cattle – authorities can order concrete measures to improve husbandry conditions on the basis of § 16a Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 1 TierSchG.

Particularly important: When interpreting the indeterminate legal concepts in the Animal Welfare Act, the administration and courts regularly resort toveterinary guidelines and the current state of scientific knowledge. Considerable weight is also given toofficial veterinary expert opinions, which are considered as expert opinions provided for by law.

What it was about in detail: Cattle husbandry in tied stalling

In the underlying proceedings, a farmer kept his cattle in tied stalling. During repeated inspections, the competent veterinary office ascertainedhusbandry-related health damage (so-called technopathies). As a consequence, the authority obliged the keeper by administrative order to provide the cattle with at least two hours of outdoor exercise daily on a pasture, paddock or exercise yard during the summer months from 1 June to 30 September.

The farmer saw this as an impermissible intervention and argued that tied stalling was permitted in the absence of special statutory provision. Furthermore, guidelines could not replace law or regulation in a binding manner.

The Administrative Court of Münster dismissed the action. Against this decision, the farmer applied for permission to appeal – without success. The Higher Regional Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (OVG NRW) (Beschluss vom 16.09.2025 – 20 A 536/22) rejected the application.

The legal reasoning of the OVG NRW

In its decision, the OVG NRW made clear that the contested order was lawful and the application for permission to appeal did not raise serious doubts about the correctness of the first-instance judgment.

No statutory gap in favour of tied stalling

The objection that the Animal Welfare Livestock Production Directive contains provisions on tied stalling only for calves but not for adult cattle does not hold. From thisno right to unrestricted tied stalling can be derived. Rather, the authority can rely precisely in such cases on the general clause of § 16a TierSchG.

Guidelines as a concrete specification

Whilst animal welfare guidelines are not laws, they carry considerable weight because they reflect thescientific standard for animal husbandry appropriate to the species. Courts may use these guidelines to give concrete form to the general clauses of § 2 TierSchG.

Weight of the official veterinary opinion

The court attaches particular weight to theprofessional assessments of official veterinarians. These are provided for by law, are regularly consulted and are considered as authoritative evidence of animal welfare law violations. A blanket denial by the animal keeper is insufficient; a substantiated counter-opinion would be required.

Less stringent measure instead of a complete ban

Contrary to the claimant's submission, the authority did not prohibit tied stalling altogether, but merely ordered anobligation to provide outdoor exercise during the summer months. Thus it was a proportionate and appropriate measure, which falls short of stricter regulations – such as those applicable to calves.

Significance for animal keepers

The decision makes clear:Even without express specific provisions, authorities can issue substantial requirements if animal husbandry is contrary to the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. In particular, tied stalling of cattle is increasingly viewed critically and is subject to minimum requirements such as daily outdoor exercise.

For farmers, this means that they should review and adapt their husbandry conditions in good time. Those who keep cattle in tied stalling must henceforth reckon with the possibility that authorities will order at least temporary outdoor exercise on a binding basis.

Our recommendation

Animal keepers should be aware thatguidelines and official veterinary findings carry high weight in animal welfare law proceedings. A simple denial of official expert opinions is generally insufficient.

Therefore, critically examine your animal husbandry, in particular with regard to movement, outdoor exercise and behavioural opportunities. Should you receive an administrative order, it is advisable to seek early legal advice from the experts inadministrative law from AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart. In this way, legal risks can be minimized and practical solutions found.