Is it illegal to sell duck eggs in Austria? When I lived in Toronto I would often buy fresh duck and turkey eggs from the city's markets. Yesterday I tried doing the same thing at a market in Vienna and was told by the stall operator that it's illegal to sell duck (and turkey) eggs. She said that she's permitted by law to sell chicken and quail eggs, but that all other fresh eggs can be bought only at poultry farms. I therefore have the following questions: Which law (if any) makes it illegal for shops and markets in Austria to sell turkey and duck eggs? If those who enacted this law provided a clear rationale for it—for example, in its title (&quot;An Act to Prevent the Spread of Duck-Borne Encephalitis from Unsanitary Egg-handling Procedures at City Market Stalls&quot;) or in its preamble—then what is that stated rationale?
Eggs in the EU are regulated under Verordnung (EG) 853/2004. Especially 5.1 is or relevancy : 5.1. &quot;Eggs&quot; means eggs in shell - other than broken, incubated or cooked eggs - that are produced by farmed birds and are fit for direct human consumption or for the preparation of egg products. However, Austria had a specific regulation on duck eggs, that incorporated special rules until 2006: Verordnung des Bundesministeriums für soziale Verwaltung vom 7. Mai 1947, betreffend den Verkehr mit Enteneiern StF: BGBl. Nr. 118/1947 Präambel/Promulgationsklausel Auf Grund des § 6 des Gesetzes vom 16. Jänner 1896, R. G. Bl. Nr. 89 ex 1897, betreffend den Verkehr mit Lebensmitteln und einigen Gebrauchsgegenständen, wird verordnet: § 1. Enteneier dürfen nur nach Maßgabe der folgenden Beschränkungen vorrätig gehalten, feilgehalten oder sonst in den Verkehr gebracht werden: a) Enteneier müssen die mit deutlich lesbarer, in unverwischbarer, kochechter, nicht gesundheitsschädlicher Farbe angebrachte Aufschrift Entenei! Kochen! tragen. Die Kennzeichnung muß in Umrandung mit lateinischen Buchstaben von mindestens 3 mm Höhe aufgedruckt sein; b) An den Behältnissen, in denen Enteneier feilgehalten werden, muß an einer gut sichtbaren Stelle auf einem mindestens 20 cm langen und 15 cm breiten Schilde die deutlich lesbare Aufschrift Enteneier!Vor dem Gebrauch mindestens 8 Minuten kochen oder in Backofenhitze durchbacken! angebracht sein; c) In Geschäftsräumen und Verkaufsständen, in denen Enteneier feilgehalten werden, ist an gut sichtbarer Stelle in der Nähe der feilgehaltenen Enteneier ein mindestens 24 x 30 cm großes Schild anzubringen, das die deutlich lesbare Aufschrift trägt: Enteneier dürfen zur Verhütung von Gesundheitsschädigungen nicht roh oder weichgekocht verzehrt oder zur Herstellung von Puddings, Mayonnaise, Eierspeisen, Spiegeleiern, Pallatschinken, Omeletten usw. verwendet werden. Sie müssen vor dem Genuß mindestens 8 Minuten gekocht oder beim Kuchenbacken in Backofenhitze völlig durchgebacken werden. The text prescribes a very precise marking that has to be mounted on the eggs and close to them. Without such a marking, it was illegal to sell eggs from ducks. There is no more specific reasoning given in the Päamble or main text of this 4-section law, however, the prescribed text says that there is a health reason and to prevent health damage, they demand to cook the eggs for at least 8 minutes, and their products need to be thoroughly cooked as well. It's not permitted to create raw egg products from them, such as Mayonaise. The Präamble at best indicates, that a law regulating (among others) duck eggs has been enacted first in 1896, and that this law was its successor. It itself was succeeded by the Lebensmittelsicherheits- und Verbraucherschutzgesetz - LMSVG, however I couldn't spy if or where a similar regulation was in that law but that it replaces the old regulation. Local regulations? There might be local regulations for the market that also might cut into it. Usually, market stalls need a market license, which is given for specific goods. For example, my local market has a trader that has a permit for &quot;fruit, vegetables, and salads&quot;, but they do not have a permit for any meat products, eggs, or baked goods. Another similar seller has one that is larger by the entry &quot;chicken eggs&quot;. It's illegal for the first to have any chicken eggs on display or on offer, but not for the second. However, it is often very hard to get those local regulations or licensing schemes anywhere else but at the local market inspector (Marktmeister), their office or town hall. By using the market regulations, they can enact a local de-facto ban on such products on the market. However, that's mostly smaller local markets. Luckikly, Vienna has its own market office, and can be reached at +43 1 4000-8090, their regulations can be found here. It bans cage-farmed eggs in §5, but does not have specific regulations for Duck eggs. However, in applying for a market stall, the form requires you to describe what types of goods you want to sell, and not listing duck eggs and then selling them could be a violation of the market license you got, depending on how strict the market inspector is.
Mice are not Wildlife Any animal that can be hunted with regulations is listed in the laws about hunting. But the very hunting regulation in Oregon also has an exclusion list what is not regulated under it, because they are not wildlife. Some Rats and Mice species are called out: Pursuant to the definition of “wildlife,” the following species are not subject to these rules because they are not “wild”: SPECIES — SCIENTIFIC NAME (16) Mouse (House mouse) — Mus musculus. (18) Rat — Rattus norvegicus and R. rattus. As they are not Wildlife no license is required. They are not &quot;Wild Mammels&quot; either, meaning the whole rulebook of the Department of Fish and Wildlife does not apply to these species - and so no hunting license can be required. Several types of Muridae are also listed as &quot;Noncontrolled Species&quot; in the chappter on Importation, Possession, Confinement, Transportation and Sale of Nonnative Wildlife - pretty much the pet statutes so you can buy and trade them normally, but that is not about hunting. There are rules for Pests... There are specific Pest Control Laws in Oregon. For example Chapter 527 on Forest and forest products is targeting mostly &quot;native and exotic pests&quot;, but defines a pest as an insect for this chapter: (8) “Pest” means any forest insect or disease which causes or may cause damage that prevents or interferes with management objectives in a specific area. In chapter 603/division 52 on pest and Disease control, everything that is a pest is either a bacteria, fungi, or insect. Rodents are predatory animal Rule 837-012-0310 allows very specific pest control fireworks, which (via the definitions) points to ORS 480.124, which again points to ORS 610.002, which reads: As used in this chapter, “predatory animal” or “predatory animals” includes feral swine as defined by State Department of Agriculture rule, coyotes, rabbits, rodents and birds that are or may be destructive to agricultural crops, products and activities, but excluding game birds and other birds determined by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission to be in need of protection. [1959 c.240 §2; 1971 c.658 §29; 1977 c.136 §4; subsection (2) of 610.002 (“Predatory animals” defined) renumbered 610.003 (Bobcat and red fox control permitted); 1979 c.399 §2; 2001 c.125 §2] So Mice and Rats are under Chapter 610, which regulates that the Fish and Wildlife Service has to put up a fund to allow them to take measures for control of their numbers. Killing Rodents is often Mandatory There are 58 Oregon laws and regulations that mention the word Rodent. Many of them are about sanitation and were to not allow rodents, as well as who is allowed to regulate what to do against rodents. Child Welfare Services is allowed to make rules that demand rodent control. and indeed, Child care centers need to follow this rule (3) Insect and Rodent Control: (a) The center shall be in such condition as to prevent the infestation of rodents and insects. Rule 415-050-0085 mandates (like many similar ones) that certain medical centers need to get rid of rodents: (6) All measures necessary to control rodents must be taken; Rule 603-032-0140 demands that grain storage is rodent free: (1) Storage facilities shall be of sound construction and shall be maintained in such condition as shall adequately protect at all times stored commodities from the elements, rodents, birds, and injurious vermin. Then there's Rule 333-030-0070 from the section on camps, which is all about rodent control: (1) The grounds, buildings and structures [of a camp] used or intended for human use and habitation must be kept clean and maintained to prevent access, harborage and infestation by insects, rodents and vermin. Likewise, Recreation Parks, Adult Foster Homes, Mental Health institutions and others need to be rodent free. These does not just allow eradicating any rodent, it demands it
In general, the law is not based on the species, it is based on the use of the animal. This gives rise to the difference between food rabbits and pet rabbits, and so on. The definition or applicable offenses are spelled out in each state's criminal code. In Washington, Chapter 9.08 RCW covers "Crimes relating to animals", and 16.52 RCW covers "prevention of cruelty to animals". 9.08.065 defines a "pet animal" as a tamed or domesticated animal legally retained by a person and kept as a companion. "Pet animal" does not include livestock raised for commercial purposes and then makes it a crime to steal a pet animal (this is in addition to regular laws against theft that applies to any property). So if you steal someone's pet goat, that's two or more crimes, but if you steal a meat goat, that's one less crime. The main anti-cruelty laws are in 16.52. Distinctions may be made between between domestic animals and generic animals, or between livestock and others, or food animals and others, so it just depends on the action being forbidden. RCW 16.52.205 says you commit first degree animal cruelty if you intentionally (a) inflicts substantial pain on, (b) causes physical injury to, or (c) kills an animal by a means causing undue suffering or while manifesting an extreme indifference to life, or forces a minor to inflict unnecessary pain, injury, or death on an animal. There is no other provision allowing you to torture any animal, not even a backyard rat. It is generally illegal to poison animals, but RCW 16.52.190 allows euthanizing by poison, or pest-eradication by poison (insects are animals too). Thus it is legal to poison a pest rat but illegal to poison a pet rat. There is also a general exception, in 16.52.180, that No part of this chapter shall be deemed to interfere with any of the laws of this state known as the "game laws," nor be deemed to interfere with the right to destroy any venomous reptile or any known as dangerous to life, limb or property, or to interfere with the right to kill animals to be used for food or with any properly conducted scientific experiments or investigations, which experiments or investigations shall be performed only under the authority of the faculty of some regularly incorporated college or university of the state of Washington or a research facility registered with the United States department of agriculture and regulated by 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2131 et seq. This allows you to kill chickens for food, and might be construed as allowing you to feed rats to your snake (the law does not say "used as food for humans"). The definition of 1st degree cruelty also has an exception that "Nothing in this section may be considered to prohibit accepted animal husbandry practices" (however, keeping an animal as a pet or educational object does not constitute "animal husbandry" in the ordinary meaning of words). There is no clear statutory division in Washington between feeding rats to reptiles, and feeding dogs to reptiles, and if you were to feed kittens to your monitor lizard, you might well get arrested. Idaho animal cruelty law also forbids cruelty to any animal: Every person who is cruel to any animal, or who causes or procures any animal to be cruelly treated, or who, having the charge or custody of any animal either as owner or otherwise, subjects any animal to cruelty shall, upon conviction, be punished in accordance with section 25-3520A, Idaho Code. and cruel(ty) is (a) The intentional and malicious infliction of pain, physical suffering, injury or death upon an animal; (b) To maliciously kill, maim, wound, torment, deprive of necessary sustenance, drink or shelter, cruelly beat, mutilate or cruelly kill an animal; (c) To subject an animal to needless suffering or inflict unnecessary cruelty; (d) To knowingly abandon an animal; (e) To negligently confine an animal in unsanitary conditions or to negligently house an animal in inadequate facilities; to negligently fail to provide sustenance, water or shelter to an animal. Again, feeding a rat to a snake is not intrinsically malicious, nor is feeding a puppy to a turtle intrinsically malicious. A distinction can be made under the related law on torturing a companion animal (an extension of the original anti-cruelty law): A person is guilty of the offense of torturing a companion animal if he tortures a companion animal as defined in this chapter. where "companion animal" is defined as those animals solely kept as pets and not used as production animals, as defined in this section, including, but not limited to, domestic dogs, domestic cats, rabbits, companion birds, and other animals. This gives a basis for distinguishing feeder rats from feeder puppies. Torture is then defined as the intentional, knowing and willful infliction of unjustifiable and extreme or prolonged pain, mutilation or maiming done for the purpose of causing suffering. "Torture" shall not mean or include acts of omission or of neglect nor acts committed unintentionally or by accident. "Torture" also shall not mean or include normal or legal practices as provided in section 25-3514, Idaho Code. And thus it is not clear that feeding an animal to a turtle counts, since the purpose is to feed the turtle, not to cause suffering. The exceptions spelled out in 25-3514 might be applicable, but there are not clearly applicable. One exception is "The humane slaughter of any animal normally and commonly raised as food, for production of fiber or equines" – perhaps using an animal as feed for another animal can be "humane slaughter", perhaps rats are "normally and commonly" raised as food, unlike dogs. It is not currently against federal law to slaughter cats and dogs for meat, but there is a bill in Congress which would make it so. The bill has 245 sponsors in the House, so it is likely to pass.
It is illegal to sell alcohol to a minor in Washington (RCW 66.44.270). The seller can get into various kinds of trouble, including losing their license, under liquor board regulations. However, as long as the establishment follows the rules for acceptable ID, they escape liability if in fact they sell alcohol to a minor: the license holder is legally allowed to accept an identification of the specific type. That is the sense in which this is required by law: the customer must have actually presented the identification, in order for the establishment to escape liability (RCW 66.20.210). Looking old enough is not the issue. It is legal to sell alcohol to a person who is over 21, and the law does not require presentation of identification as a condition for a sale. However, under RCW 66.20.180 a person is require to produce ID "upon request of any licensee, peace officer, or enforcement officer of the board". The legal risk attached to sales in an age-marginal situation is very high, and actual presentation of ID is required to escape liability by the establishment, so in that sense, it is "required by law". All requests to produce ID for liquor sales (at least in Washington, and leaving out deliveries which are governed by other laws) are driven by company policy. Typical policies are quite rational, being designed to protect the company's interest in not getting into a heap of trouble for an under-age sale. There is no law saying when you must ask, or when you are protected if you don't ask. Usually, store policy is to use "common sense" so that 90 year olds are not required to produce ID (they may be asked, jokingly). Non-compliance with RCW 66.20.180 carries no legal penalty, that is, there is nothing in the statute that says "if the customer doesn't...". The most obvious would be that the seller would refuse to sell, which the seller can arbitrarily do anyhow. There is no statutory penalty imposed on a licensee if they request ID of a person over 21 and the person fails / refuses to produce the ID. Obviously, the licensee cannot be punished if a customer fails to provide ID (and leaves), especially if they lost it. But the law "requires" them to provide an ID, with ne except "unless you leave / put the bottle back". Somewhat less obviously, if the legislature wants to, it can enact a provision that once a licensee requests ID, they are forbidden to sell alcohol to that customer until ID is provided. But there currently is no such law. "The law" also included regulations, such as WAC 314-17-105. This regulation is a chart, and the relevant entry is PERMIT: Failure to produce permit or identification upon request. See RCW 66.20.310 and 66.20.180. for which the 1st offense consequence is "5-day permit suspension OR $100 monetary option". This is a problematic regulation (potential lawsuit fodder), since it can be interpreted in a number of ways. The question is, of whom is the permit or identification predicated? Only the licensee has a permit, but customers and employees can both have identification. If we interpret this regulation as meaning "Failure by licensee or customer", then we arrive at the absurd conclusion that if a customer fails to produce ID on request, the establishment is fined. It is important to note that this regulation is under a chapter about server training, thus the regulation can only reasonably be interpreted as being about licensee providing identification.
I know that in many countries, including the US, the UK, and most, perhaps all, of Europe, it is common for houses to be sold while still under construction, so no such legal prohibition exists (or at least is enforced) in any of those countries. I have never heard of any country which has a general law against such a practice, but I cannot be sure for all countri8es in the world. There are other was to &quot;prevent contractor delays and/or construction malformations and even constructions deformations&quot;. Many counties have building codes, which make improper building techniques unlawful. In some countries failure to adhere to proper professional standards in such matters is unlawful, and it is usual for the purchase of an unfinished building to involve a contract, in which performance standards and dates are spelled out. Failure to adhere to such requirements would give the purchaser grounds for a lawsuit for damages.
The rink is private property; they can let who they like in, and they can refuse entry to who they like. They can ban you for any or no reason. (The only exception to this is that they can't refuse entry because of some protected characteristic like race or gender.) The owner doesn't have to personally issue a ban; any person they authorize can do so. (Consider the case where the owner is something like the Disney Corporation; bans aren't going to be issued by the board of Disney - they will be delegated to the local manager, and probably the shift leader). You can still show up of course, but you are quite likely to be thrown out.
Prompted by this recent similar question, I've revisited this question and deleted my original answer as it was completely off the mark. This is its replacement. It is illegal, and it turns out to be an international standard in the Berne Convention. Article 16 in full: (1) Infringing copies of a work shall be liable to seizure in any country of the Union where the work enjoys legal protection. (2) The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall also apply to reproductions coming from a country where the work is not protected, or has ceased to be protected. (3) The seizure shall take place in accordance with the legislation of each country. Your scenario falls squarely within point (2) and the imported George Orwell book is to be treated as an infringing copy within the UK. The implementing UK legislation for (2) can be found in Section 27(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
It may be discrimination; not all discrimination is illegal. Details vary by jurisdiction, for example discrimination on the following bases is illegal in Australia: race colour sex sexual preference age physical or mental disability marital status family or carer’s responsibilities pregnancy religion political opinion national extraction social origin A medical condition like an allergy is not necessarily a physical disability. The school is arguably fulfilling its obligations under WHS legislation by banning nut products if that is what a risk assessment indicates. It may also be necessary to ban milk products if that is required for your daughter's safety. If (and I do not know) nuts pose a greater risk than milk then banning the former and not the latter may be perfectly justified. Ask to see the risk assessment.