Dutch Court Ruling Reshapes Dog Breeding: Pedigrees Denied for Short-Snouted Breeds

A historic court ruling in the Netherlands has redefined the legal landscape for dog breeding. The Dutch Kennel Club (Raad van Beheer) has been ordered to stop issuing pedigrees for dogs whose muzzle length is less than one third of their skull length. This decision, grounded in Dutch animal welfare law, affects numerous brachycephalic (short muzzled) breeds and has sparked debate among breeders, animal rights advocates and veterinarians. While this topic does not involve Finnish Lapphunds, I enjoy following international dog news and have monitored this case. Often the European countries are progressive in their animal welfare laws and philosophies, and changes made overseas can trigger a flow on affect internationally.

Legal Foundation: Article 3.4 of the Animal Keepers Decree

At the heart of this decision is Article 3.4 of the Dutch Animal Keepers Decree (Besluit Houders van Dieren), introduced in 2014 as part of the Netherlands’ broader framework for animal welfare legislation. The law states:

“It is prohibited to breed companion animals in a manner that is detrimental to the welfare and health of the parent animal or its offspring.”— Article 3.4, Besluit Houders van Dieren (source – Maxius.nl)

This law was enacted to combat the breeding of animals with hereditary or extreme conformational traits known to cause suffering, particularly in dogs bred for exaggerated physical features like extremely short muzzles.

Enforcement Criteria and the Traffic Light System

Due to the introduction of Article 3.4, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality issued specific enforcement criteria in March 2019, based on expert advice from Utrecht University's Expertise Centre for Genetics of Companion Animals.

One of the core tools introduced was the Craniofacial Ratio (CFR): the ratio between the length of a dog’s muzzle and the length of its skull. This ratio helps quantify extreme brachycephaly.

To facilitate implementation, the ministry introduced a “traffic light system”:

• Red: CFR < 0.3 - Breeding prohibited

• Orange: CFR between 0.3 and 0.5 - Breeding allowed under strict veterinary supervision

• Green: CFR > 0.5 - Breeding permitted without restrictions

This system was intended to provide breeders and enforcement bodies with clear, measurable, and science-based guidelines.

How Is It Enforced?

The Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) and the National Animal Welfare Inspection Unit (LID) are responsible for enforcing compliance. They do this through:

• Veterinary certifications: Breeding dogs must be examined by a veterinarian who measures the CFR and confirms the dog breathes normally at rest.

• Documentation and evidence: Breeders must submit proof of compliance before breeding.

• On site inspections: Breeding facilities may be inspected by the NVWA or LID.

• Penalties: Breeders found in violation may face fines of up to €1,500 and breeding bans.

Dogs that have undergone surgical intervention to correct breathing or eye issues are automatically deemed non compliant and cannot be lawfully bred.

Further, in 2023 the Dutch government under Minister Piet Adema tightened regulations. In August 2023, an exception that allowed short nosed dogs to be bred with longer nosed dogs, was eliminated. Additionally the fine for violating the law was increased to €3,000.

Since January 2023, the Dutch government has been working towards an ownership ban, which would prohibit owning, trading or importing dogs and cats with harmful external characteristics. A transition period would allow owners to keep their current pets until they pass away naturally. This proposal is still under consideration.

The Court Case: Dier&Recht vs. Raad van Beheer

The animal rights organisation Dier & Recht filed a civil lawsuit against the Raad van Beheer (Dutch Kennel club) in 2023. The claim? That by continuing to issue pedigrees for dogs that did not meet the CFR criteria, the Kennel Club was aiding and legitimising illegal breeding practices, in breach of Article 3.4.

The case was brought before the Amsterdam District Court in 2023, and the verdict was delivered on 4 June 2025. The court found that:

"By issuing pedigrees for dogs bred in violation of the law, the Raad van Beheer acts unlawfully." Amsterdam District Court ruling (source – Rechtspraak.nl)

The court ruled that the Dutch Kennel club can no longer issue pedigree certificates for 25 short nosed dog breeds that are 'illegally bred'. as their breeding violates animal welfare laws.

Breeds Affected

The breeds that are affected by this decision include:

• French Bulldog

• English Bulldog

• Pug

• Boston Terrier

• Pekingese

• Shih Tzu

• Lhasa Apso

• Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

• King Charles Spaniel

• Boxer

• Dogue de Bordeaux

• Bullmastiff

• Staffordshire Bull Terrier

• Griffon Bruxellois

• Affenpinscher

• Japanese Chin

• Chihuahua

• Pomeranian

• Petit Brabançon

• Yorkshire Terrier

• Maltese

Response from the Dutch Kennel Club and Breeders

The Raad van Beheer has strongly objected to the ruling. They argued that the Kennel Club has not ignored the health issues of brachycephalic dogs, in fact, they had been actively working on structured breeding reform for several years.

Their initiatives included:

• Participating in BOAS health screenings

• Adjusting breed standards to encourage longer muzzles

• Promoting outcross programs to increase genetic diversity

• Introducing breed supervision plans to track and improve health indicators

• Cooperating with Utrecht University on longitudinal breed health studies

The Kennel Club claimed that CFR alone is not a sufficient health indicator and does not take into account dogs with excellent breathing, exercise tolerance, and general health. They also expressed concern that eliminating pedigree registration will push the public toward buying dogs from unregulated sources, such as puppy mills or imported dogs without health testing.

Concerns About Genetic Diversity

Breeders and veterinary geneticists have expressed concern that strict enforcement of CFR based bans could create genetic bottlenecks. Risks include:

• A reduction in breeding stock

• Overuse of compliant sires and dams, leading to inbreeding

• The loss of genetic traits vital to breed resilience and behaviour

  
  

Without structured outcross programs or transitional health registries, well intentioned reform may inadvertently increase breed health vulnerabilities over time.

The Separate Registry Proposal

The Raad van Beheer (Dutch Kennel Club) has proposed a separate registry for dogs that do not meet CFR standards but are otherwise healthy and genetically valuable. This registry would:

• Track and monitor non compliant dogs with full transparency

• Preserve bloodlines and traits that may otherwise be lost

• Allow future reintroduction of dogs once CFR trends improve across generations

This approach is intended to preserve breed diversity while working toward long term structural change.

Could This Happen in Australia?

Australia does not have a single national law equivalent to the Netherlands' Article 3.4. Instead, each state and territory enforces its own animal welfare legislation, including breeding regulations. This creates inconsistency and often confusion. And the wording of some of the laws are open to interpretation.

Laws in states such as Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, and the ACT prohibit breeding animals with known heritable defects that may impact the health of offspring. However:

• There is no national threshold like the CFR

• There is no uniform definition of what constitutes a health condition that makes breeding unlawful

• Much is left to veterinary discretion, and enforcement varies significantly by state

Could a Similar Court Case Occur in Australia?

Yes, potentially. A similar civil case could be brought in Australia if:

• An animal rights organisation argued that a breeder or registry was breaching their states animal welfare law by facilitating the breeding of dogs with harmful conformational traits

• They chose to challenge the conduct through civil litigation, much like Dier&Recht did in the Netherlands

It would be a state based case, and success would depend on how clearly the state legislation links breeding practices to animal suffering or harm.

Such a case could establish legal precedent in Australia and cause widespread change in breeding standards, codes of practice and registration policies.

Final Thoughts

The Dutch court ruling marks a defining moment in the relationship between animal welfare law, dog breeding ethics and the role of kennel clubs. While the goal is to reduce animal suffering, it raises complex questions about:

• How we define health and welfare in breeding

• The unintended consequences of oversimplified rules

• How national and international breeding registries will adapt

  
  

With growing pressure globally, and the potential for similar legal challenges in countries like Australia, the era of health first dog breeding is not just approaching. It’s already begun.