13/05/2026
There are those who have read the response of European Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen as a rejection of the Italian proposed law on equids. That reading is wrong — or, at best, self-serving.
Let us reconstruct the facts accurately.
The parliamentary question and the expectations of those who submitted it
On 25 February 2026, MEP Michele Picaro (ECR – Fratelli d'Italia) submitted a written question to the European Commission. The subject: the Italian proposed law providing for a ban on the slaughter, production, sale, import and consumption of horse meat, and the reclassification of equids as companion animals. Picaro was essentially asking whether such a law would be compatible with European law — and in particular with the rules on the internal market, the free movement of goods, and the common agricultural policy.
The subtext of the question was transparent: to obtain from Brussels an argument to deploy against the ongoing parliamentary process. The response arrived on 29 April 2026. And it disappointed those who had hoped for that decisive blow.
What Commissioner Hansen wrote
The Commissioner recalled that horse meat falls within the European Union's common organisation of agricultural markets (EU Regulation No. 1308/2013), and that member states are in principle required to refrain from adopting measures that could constitute a derogation from or a violation of that organisation. So far, nothing new.
But the decisive passage is the one that follows — which those who interpreted the response as being against the law chose to ignore or downplay. Hansen wrote explicitly: "the establishment of a common organisation of the markets does not prevent member states from applying national rules that pursue a general interest objective other than those pursued by that common organisation of the markets, even if those rules may have an impact on the functioning of the internal market in the sector concerned."
This sentence is worth reading carefully, because it says exactly the opposite of a block. It says that a member state may legislate — even in a sector covered by the common organisation of markets — if it does so in pursuit of a general interest distinct from purely commercial considerations. The only constraint is that the measure be proportionate to its objective.
The protection of animal welfare, the fight against the exploitation of equids, the prevention of fraud in the supply chain: these are precisely general interests of this kind. They are, not coincidentally, the reasons why IHP has supported and helped shape that proposed law.
Why the response should be read as favourable to the law
Those who oppose the bill — breeders, industry operators, the equestrian world — interpreted Hansen's response as a signal of European concern, almost a warning. In reality, Hansen did the only thing he could do: he applied the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which for decades has recognised the right of member states to derogate from market logic when the objective pursued is a legitimate general interest.
IHP has supported the proposed law from the outset not as a symbolic or cultural choice, but as a concrete instrument for tackling a supply chain that, beyond generating suffering, fuels clandestine racing, illegal slaughter, and illicit trafficking of untraced animals. As president Sonny Richichi stated during his hearing at the Chamber of Deputies on 21 April, the slaughter ban is a structural lever against exploitation — not merely an ethical stance.
Brussels' response does not close that door. It keeps it open, on the condition that the Italian Parliament constructs a law that is technically sound, proportionate, and accompanied by the indispensable control mechanisms: a reformed equid registry, genuine traceability, and dedicated resources. Conditions that IHP has always identified as non-negotiable.
The political point
There is finally one element that should not be overlooked. Hansen specified that, should the law contain "technical regulations" within the meaning of EU Directive 2015/1535, the text will need to be notified to the Commission before it enters into force. This is not an obstacle: it is a standard procedure, required for any national technical rule that may affect the internal market. To treat it as an implicit veto would be, once again, a distorted reading.
The European Commission has not spoken out against the law. It could not have done so, and it did not. It simply recalled the rules of the game. And those rules, correctly read, leave Italy all the room it needs to protect equids.