Summary:

I.
In their constitutional complaint, the complainants, who chose to enter the profession of equine hoof care provider or hoof technician, who operate training institutions for equine hoof care and technology, or who teach at such institutions, object to the inclusion of their professions in the newly drafted Act on Horseshoeing. The professional designation “hoof care provider” includes hoof care services strictly limited to so-called barefoot horses, i.e. horses with no or only temporary hoof protection such as horse boots. In contrast, “hoof technicians” are specialists providing all types of hoof care services and hoof protection with the exception of metal horseshoes – which may only be provided by farriers.

II.
.In essence, the constitutional complaints were successful. The First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court held that Article 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 as well as Article 1.6.1,in conjunction with Article 2.1. of the Act on the Reform of Horseshoeing Law and on Amendments of Animal Protection Law of 19 April 2006 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 900; hereinafter “the Act”) is incompatible with Article 12.1 of the Basic Law (occupational freedom) and void to the extent that these provisions apply to professional groups which carry out work on equine hooves for the purpose of protection, health care, correction, or treatment without affixing a metal horseshoeas, as well as to persons and institutions that train persons to perform such work. For the rest, the constitutional complaints were rejected as unfounded

In essence, the decision is based on the following considerations:

The legislature has merged the professions of hoof care provider, hoof technician, and farrier into one uniform profession. The legal definition in § 2 no. 1 of the Act expands the term of horseshoeing to include all work performed on equine hooves for the purpose of protection, health care, correction, or treatment. As a result, some complainants were unable to continue in their profession as hoof technician because horseshoeing is now only allowed to be performed by certified farriers recognised by the state (§ 3.1 of the Act). Consequently, there is a direct interference with occupational freedom in the form of subjective admission requirements. The same applies to those complainants who are still training to become hoof care providers or hoof technicians and who are now required to also obtain and demonstrate particular expertise and knowledge regarding metal horseshoes and forging techniques in order to gain their professional qualification. Subjective professional admission requirements also apply to those complainants who, as operators of equine hoof care training institutions, train others as hoof care providers and hoof technicians. The state certification necessary for a training institution particularly requires the teaching of technical forging expertise (cf. § 6.2.1 – 6.2.3 of the Act), which the complainants are not qualified to do given their previous training focus. Similarly, freedom of choosing one’s occupation or profession is affected in relation to those complainants who previously worked as teachers in the specialised hoof care training without the now required qualification as a farrier teacher. Without the now required qualification they cannot continue their work.

The interference with the complainants’ occupational freedom is not justified.

To the extent that the new regulations reserve the provision of bare hoof care services to state certified farriers, they impose an unreasonable burden on the complainants who can no longer exercise the former profession of hoof care provider. The new regulations are informed by the concern that hoof care providers might provide inadequatetly narrow services; however, this concern could also be allayed by making admission to the profession of hoof care providers dependent upon acquiring and demonstrating the theoretical knowledge that is necessary to choose, from the full spectrum of care services, the suitable approach indicated in the specific case. Thus, even without technical forging training, it possible to ensure that hoof care providers have the ability and the willingness to inform about, and if necessary recommend, other hoof care methods that are appropriate in individual cases, such as horseshoeing or alternative hoof protection materials, even if the hoof care providers cannot perform the relevant services themselves. Even with regard to the human health services, doctors do not have a monopoly on treating patients. While licensed non-medical practitioners (Heilpraktiker) must refer patients to medical doctors as soon as the limits of their medicinal knowledge and skills has been reached, the past decades have shown no evidence of systemic deficits that would have made it necessary for the legislature to intervene in the interests of public health. Accordingly, it can reasonably be assumed that creating a monopoly of farriers regarding bare hoof care services does not achieve a benefit for animal health care that significantly goes beyond the benefit that can be achieved by requiring proven theoretical knowledge of the full spectrum of hoof care methods. Thus, the outcome of the balancing is that the burden on the affected holders of fundamental right is not appropriate to the public interests pursued.

Likewise, the burden on those complainants who cannot continue their professional activities as hoof technicians without successfully completing farrier training is unreasonable. To a certain extent, an “excess” of training requirements is acceptable provided that the resulting limitation on freedom is balanced by increased professional opportunities and social standing. Measured against these standards, the new qualification requirements do not have any connection to the professional activities of hoof technicians. The latter have no use for the required expertise, knowledge and skills related tp forging technique because they do not generally seek to include metal horseshoeing in their professional future – on the contrary, they are expressly opposed to this. In order to ensure that hoof technicians can provide competent advice to animal owners, it is sufficient to make professional admission dependent on obtaining and demonstrating the necessary theoretical knowledge enabling hoof technicians, without limitation, to select, in each individual case, the appropriate approach from the full spectrum of care methods including metal horseshoes, to advise animal owners accordingly, and to refer the case to a farrier when necessary. In addition, by acquiring certified technical forging qualifications, hoof technicians do not gain any professional opportunities or social standing that could justify the excess requirements imposed on them.

An unreasonable overqualification is also imposed on those complainants who operate training institutions for hoof care and hoof technology (cf. § 6.1 in conjunction with § 2.1 of the Act) as well as the complainants who teach at such institutions.

The same applies to those complainants who can only continue their professional activities on the condition they acquire state certification as farrier teachers (cf. § 3.2 of the Act).