{"id":39291,"date":"2026-06-10T04:01:10","date_gmt":"2026-06-10T04:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/this-is-vegan.com\/schlachthofprozess-urteil-olg-oldenburg\/"},"modified":"2026-06-10T04:33:01","modified_gmt":"2026-06-10T04:33:01","slug":"slaughterhouse-trial-germany-oldenburg-verdict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/this-is-vegan.com\/en\/slaughterhouse-trial-germany-oldenburg-verdict\/","title":{"rendered":"Germany’s Slaughterhouse Trial: What the Oldenburg Verdict Actually Means"},"content":{"rendered":"
Werbung<\/div>
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n<\/a>\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/div><\/div>

<\/p>\n

It is one of those moments when animal welfare, law and the public collide head-on. On 9 June 2026, the Higher Regional Court of Oldenburg<\/strong> handed down its verdict<\/a> in what has become known in Germany as the Schlachthofprozess<\/strong>, the slaughterhouse trial (case 13 U 45\/25<\/a>, in German). The two animal-rights activists Anna Schubert and Hendrik Ha\u00dfel<\/strong> are liable in principle for the damage caused to slaughterhouse operator Brand Qualit\u00e4tsfleisch in Lohne by their undercover footage and its distribution. A further appeal to Germany's Federal Court of Justice was not admitted by the court.<\/p>\n

I read the full 72-page ruling. And I would love to write something else, but the story is significantly more layered than the headlines suggest. Because between the lines of this verdict, there are findings that are genuinely important for the animal-rights movement. A regulatory expert opinion that documents animal-welfare violations inside the slaughterhouse. A blanket ban that the court rejected. And the judges' explicit finding that the footage shows exactly what is everyday reality in German slaughterhouses.<\/p>\n

For the complete background and how CO2 stunning of pigs actually works, I have written it up in detail in our research piece on the Oldenburg slaughterhouse case<\/a> (in German). Here, let's unpack the recent verdict<\/a> together. You will find the full ruling linked at the bottom of this article.<\/p>

Werbung<\/div>
\r\n \"hanfgefluester\"\r\n<\/a><\/div><\/div>\n
\"According<\/picture>
The amount of damages will be determined in separate proceedings. Photo: Marco Molitor \/ schlachthofprozess.org.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

What the slaughterhouse trial is about: the backstory in 90 seconds<\/h2>\n

Rewind. In spring 2024, Anna Schubert and others climb several times at night into the Brand Qualit\u00e4tsfleisch slaughterhouse in Lohne<\/strong> (district of Vechta, Lower Saxony). They install hidden cameras that record the stunning and slaughter process. On the night of 4 to 5 May 2024, Hendrik Ha\u00dfel is also there to collect the cameras. Police catch both of them on site.<\/p>\n

The footage shows what millions of people in Germany eat every day but almost nobody has ever seen: the CO2 stunning of pigs<\/strong><\/a> (in German). Animals are driven into gondolas and lowered into a pit filled with highly concentrated carbon dioxide. The gas irritates their mucous membranes, the pigs go into respiratory distress and panic until they lose consciousness. Around 80 percent of all pigs slaughtered in Germany<\/strong> are stunned this way. The procedure is approved under EU Regulation 1099\/2009, even though the European Food Safety Authority EFSA recommended phasing it out as early as 2004.<\/p>\n

The animal-rights organisation Animal Rights Watch (ARIWA)<\/strong> publishes the material, the public-broadcasting show Plusminus on Germany's ARD picks it up, and the images travel across the country. The slaughterhouse responds with a criminal complaint and a civil lawsuit. Anna and Hendrik respond with the Instagram channel “Der Schlachthofprozess”<\/a>, on which they document the proceedings publicly and turn the legal dispute into a movement. In July 2025, the Regional Court of Oldenburg rules primarily against Anna in the first instance. Both sides appeal. Now the appellate court has decided.<\/p>\n

\"Symbolic<\/picture><\/p>\n

Symbolic image (not from the slaughterhouse this trial is about).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The verdict at a glance: who is liable for what?<\/h2>\n

The Higher Regional Court has largely upheld the first-instance ruling and tightened it in parts<\/strong>. I have summarised the key points in a table for you:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Decision<\/th>\nRuling of the Higher Regional Court of Oldenburg<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Ban on entering the premises<\/td>\nNeither of them may enter the company premises in the future; violations may be fined up to 250,000 euros<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Damages, Anna<\/td>\nLiable in principle for trespassing and for the distribution of the ARIWA video<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Damages, Hendrik<\/td>\nNow also liable for several Instagram posts containing the footage \u2013 the key tightening compared to the first instance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Blanket ban on future publications<\/td>\nRejected; the slaughterhouse's sweeping injunction request failed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Third-party posts (e.g. solidarity accounts)<\/td>\nClassified by the court as permissible; third parties' freedom of expression prevails<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Further appeal (Revision)<\/td>\nNot admitted<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Value of dispute<\/td>\n110,000 euros<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Important context: “In principle” does not yet mean a specific sum of money.<\/strong> The court has merely established that liability for damages exists. Whether the slaughterhouse can actually prove a quantifiable loss, and how high it would be, has to be clarified in separate proceedings. The burden of proof there lies entirely with the slaughterhouse. The court itself writes in the ruling that possible damages “may be minor or hard to establish and prove”.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
View this post on Instagram<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

A post shared by Der Schlachthof-Prozess (@schlachthofprozess)<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n