Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2024:1029
Date: 2024-12-12
Language of the case: Estonian
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Estonia

Summary C-629/23 – 1 
Case C-629/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
16 October 2023 
Referring court: 
Riigikohus (Estonia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
13 October 2023 
Applicant: 
MTÜ Eesti Suurkiskjad 
Defendant: 
Keskkonnaamet 
Interested party: 
Keskkonnaagentuur 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action brought by the Mittetulundusühing (non-profit-making association 
organisation; ‘the MTÜ’) Eesti Suurkiskjad for a declaration that an order of the 
Keskkonnaamet (Environmental Board, Estonia) is unlawful 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 267 
TFEU on the interpretation of Articles 1(i), 2(3) and 14(1) of the Habitats 
Directive 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-629/23 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must Article 14(1) of the Habitats Directive be interpreted as requiring that 
favourable conservation status within the meaning of Article 1(i) be ensured 
in respect of a regional population of a species in a particular Member State 
where the measures referred to in that provision are adopted, or can the 
conservation status of the overall population in the territory of the Member 
States of the European Union be taken into account? 
2. If account can be taken of the conservation status of the overall population 
in the territory of the Member States of the European Union, must the 
Habitats Directive be interpreted as requiring formal cooperation between 
the Member States to which the range of the population extends in order to 
conserve that population, or is it sufficient for the Member State adopting 
the measures referred to in Article 14 of the Habitats Directive to assess the 
situation of the population of the species in the other Member States 
concerned or lay down the conditions for doing so in a national management 
plan? 
3. Can Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive be interpreted as meaning that a 
regional population of a species classified in the ‘vulnerable’ (VU) category 
in accordance with the criteria of the IUCN Red List can have a favourable 
conservation status within the meaning of the Habitats Directive? 
4. Can Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive, in conjunction with Article 2(3) 
thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, when assessing the favourable 
conservation status of a species, account can also be taken of economic, 
social and cultural requirements and regional and local particularities? 
Provisions of European Union law cited 
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural 
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7; ‘the Habitats Directive’) 
Case-law of the European Union cited 
Judgments of the Court of Justice of 23 April 2020, Commission v Finland 
(Spring hunt of male common eiders), C-217/19, EU:C:2020:291; of 10 October 
2019, Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola, C-674/17, EU:C:2019:851; of 14 June 
2007, Commission v Finland, C-342/05, EU:C:2007:341; of 7 September 2004, 
Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging, C-127/02, EU:C:2004:482; 
and of 7 November 2000, First Corporate Shipping, C-371/98, EU:C:2000:600, 
paragraph 25 
EESTI SUURKISKJAD 
 
3 
Provisions of national law cited 
Looduskaitseseadus (Law on nature protection; ‘the LKS’), Paragraphs 1, 3, 46 
and 49 
Jahiseadus (Law on hunting; ‘the JahiS’), Paragraph 22 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 4 October 2012, the Keskkonnaminister (Minister for the Environment, 
Estonia) adopted the ‘Action plan for the protection and management of large 
carnivores (wolf canis lupus, lynx, brown bear ursus arctos) for the period 2012-
2021’. According to the plan, the status of all large carnivore populations can be 
described as good. The plan set the long-term (30-year) objective of maintaining 
the favourable status of the wolf population, having regard to ecological, 
economic and social aspects. A more specific objective for the period 2012-2021 
was to maintain 15 to 25 wolf packs with pups annually (overall population size of 
around 150-250 specimens) before the start of the hunting season (in autumn). 
Within that range, annual targets were to be set according to the results of 
monitoring, and the population was to be maintained within those ranges by 
means of hunting. 
2 The Keskkonnaamet (Environment Board; ‘the KeA’) set the wolf hunting quota 
for the 2020/2021 hunting year in the territory of the Republic of Estonia pursuant 
to Paragraph 22(2) of the JahiS by order of 29 October 2020 (‘the KeA order’) 
initially at 140 specimens. Under the order, the KeA is entitled to change the wolf 
hunting quota set by the order after the Keskkonnaagentuur (Environment 
Agency; ‘the KAUR’) has made proposals in that regard. The KAUR estimates 
that the pressure of hunting on wolves was below the population growth rate on 
account of poor snow conditions in 2019 and estimates the number of wolf litters 
in autumn 2020 at 32 to 34. The main management objective was to have an 
average of 20 wolf litters on the Estonian mainland by 2021, with the population 
distributed as evenly as possible across suitable habitats. 
3 The MTÜ Eesti Suurkiskjad (‘the applicant’) brought an action for annulment of 
the KeA order before the Tallinna Halduskohus (Administrative Court, Tallinn, 
Estonia), which dismissed the action by judgment of 1 October 2021. The Tallinna 
Halduskohus (Administrative Court, Tallinn) found that the setting of the hunting 
quota pursuant to Paragraph 22(2) JahiS is a discretionary decision which the 
court could not adopt in place of the administrative authority. The court can assess 
whether all relevant data have been taken into account when setting the hunting 
quota and whether or not it has been set arbitrarily. The Tallinna Halduskohus 
(Administrative Court, Tallinn) found that, under the Habitats Directive the wolf 
is a species of Community interest which must be strictly protected, but that 
Annex IV to the directive provides for a derogation from the prohibition on wolf 
hunting for, inter alia, the Estonian wolf population, which is listed in Annex V to 
the directive. In the view of that court, the monitoring report drawn up by the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-629/23 
 
4  
KAUR and the proposal for the organisation of wolf hunting annexed thereto were 
taken into account when the administrative act was adopted. 
4 The applicant lodged an appeal with the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Tallinn Court 
of Appeal, Estonia) and claimed that the judgment of the Administrative Court 
should be set aside and the action should be upheld by a new judgment. The 
Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Tallinn Court of Appeal) dismissed the appeal by 
judgment of 30 June 2022 and left the operative part of the Administrative Court’s 
judgment unchanged, but partially replaced the grounds of the judgment. In its 
considerations, the Court of Appeal also took into account the Action Plan for the 
Protection and Management of Large Carnivores for the period 2022-2031. 
5 The Court of Appeal found, inter alia, that the restrictions laid down by the 
Habitats Directive differed significantly as regards Annexes IV and V thereto. 
Unlike in the case of the Finnish population, conservation measures to protect the 
Estonian wolf population are permitted but not mandatory. Therefore, the 
requirements laid down by the Court of Justice in its decision in the case of 
Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola are not entirely relevant in this case. The Court 
of Justice’s position in that case, that the part of the natural range of a population 
extending to certain parts of the territory of a third country in which there is no 
obligation of strict protection of species of EU interest cannot be assessed, is also 
relevant, outside the context of Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive, to the 
assessment of the permissibility of activities which may be detrimental to the 
conservation status of a species. When setting hunting quotas, Estonia can only 
take account of that part of the natural range of wolves within which the 
population is protected by EU law. The case-law of the Court of Justice does not 
prohibit taking account of migratory movements and impacts between Member 
States on the conservation status of the population of a species. There is no 
evidence that the conditions laid down Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive for 
the long-term maintenance of the conservation status would not be met without 
taking account of the Russian population. It is therefore not permitted to take 
account of the conservation measures taken by Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, even 
if this is not done in the context of cooperation between the competent authorities. 
6 According to the report ‘Key actions for Large Carnivore Populations in Europe’ 
(2015) commissioned by the Commission, the Baltic wolf population in the 
Member States of the EU (excluding the parts outside the EU) comprises 
approximately 900 to 1 400 specimens (20% of which are in Estonia), with the 
status of the population being stable and corresponding to the LC (least concern) 
category of the IUCN Red List, that is to say not classified as endangered (p. 47). 
It is therefore inappropriate to draw parallels with the wolf populations in Karelia 
(around 150 specimens in Finland) and Scandinavia (250 to 300 specimens in 
Sweden and Norway together), which are EN (endangered) according to the 
report. 
7 The applicant lodged an appeal on a point of law and claimed that the judgment of 
the Court of Appeal should be partially set aside, and that a new judgment 
EESTI SUURKISKJAD 
 
5 
upholding the action should be delivered. The defendant contended that the appeal 
on a point of law should be dismissed. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main 
8 The MTÜ Eesti Suurkiskjad essentially argued at first and second instances that 
the conservation status of the wolf in Estonia is not favourable and the hunting of 
140 wolves makes it more difficult to achieve a favourable status, that the action 
plan does not implement the Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans 
for Large Carnivores, 2008, adopted by the European Commission (‘the 2008 
European Commission Guidelines’), that the KeA order allows the killing of 
almost all reproductive individuals in a single hunting season, that wolf hunting is 
not targeted at areas of damage, and that hunting quotas are not set with regard to 
habitat loss (intensive deforestation) and the diseases which occur in wolves. The 
MTÜ Eesti Suurkiskjad also questioned the accuracy, sufficiency and precision of 
the scientific data, analyses and methods on which the KeA order was based. 
9 In the proceedings on an appeal on a point of law, the applicant pointed out that 
the Court of Justice has ruled that species on a national red list are considered to 
have an unfavourable status within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the Habitats 
Directive (Commission v Finland, C-342/05, paragraph 26, and Commission v 
Finland [Spring hunt of male common eiders], C-217/19, paragraphs 79 and 80). 
Estonia cannot interpret the criteria relating to favourable status differently. The 
unfavourable status of the wolf was already known in 2008 (Red List category 
‘near threatened’) and certainly no later than 2019, that is to say before the KeA 
order was issued. In decisions on the environment, including decisions concerning 
the status of the population or habitat of a species, scientific doubt must be 
excluded (judgment in Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola, paragraphs 66 and 69). 
10 The applicant pointed out that the wolf is categorised as ‘endangered’ in the Red 
List according to the IUCN criteria. The second, more comprehensive method for 
determining the status of the species is population viability analysis modelling, 
which is planned only in respect of the Estonian wolf in the future. Both 
assessment methods are also covered in the guidelines commissioned by the 
Commission. According to the guidelines, the status of a large carnivore cannot be 
considered favourable if even one indicator points to an unfavourable status 
(p. 22). Whilst the defendant argued that the guidelines are not binding, the 
applicant submits that there is no justification for not following them and no 
alternative method of similar weight has been put forward. The guidelines were 
also referred to by Advocate General Kokott (Opinions in Commission v Finland, 
C-342/05, EU:C:2006:752, point 52, and Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor, 
C-88/19, EU:C:2020:93, point 39). 
11 The applicant argues that the Court of Appeal did not address the precautionary 
principle in its judgment. In the context of nature conservation, sufficiently 
effective conservation measures must be taken before the status of a species or 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-629/23 
 
6  
habitat deteriorates (Opinion of the Advocate General in Commission v Ireland, 
C-418/04, EU:C:2006:569, points 58 to 60). In its judgment in 
Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola, the Court of Justice ruled that a management 
plan for large carnivores cannot automatically provide a basis for the application 
of derogations under Article 16, but that the requirements for a derogation must 
always be examined on a case-by-case basis (paragraphs 49 to 53). The same 
procedure should be followed when setting an upper limit for hunting a species 
referred to in Annex V. The aims set out in Article 2(1) and (2) of the Habitats 
Directive are more important than the possibility, mentioned in Article 2(3), of 
also taking account of social and cultural effects (judgment in First Corporate 
Shipping, C-371/98, paragraph 25). 
12 The KeA essentially submitted that wolves in Estonia do not fall under any of the 
categories of protection within the meaning of Paragraph 46 of the LKS. Estonia 
has a geographical derogation in the Habitats Directive, under which wolves may 
be hunted on the basis of an action plan pursuant to Paragraph 49(1)(2) and (3) of 
the LKS. The action plan, which is non-binding and not subject to judicial review, 
is drawn up in cooperation with the best scientists, experts, representatives of 
competent authorities, and interest groups in that field. In the view of the KeA, the 
abovementioned European Commission guidelines are indicative in nature. The 
defendant pointed out that the wolf population in Estonia has a favourable status. 
On account of the small size of the area, the population cannot only be assessed 
within Estonia. The Baltic part of the wolf population within the European Union 
is estimated at 870 to 1 400 specimens. The development of wolf populations can 
be considered stable and fluctuations in the population can be considered normal. 
Since 2002, the wolf population has almost tripled. According to the forecasts in 
the wildlife monitoring report, the preliminary predicted number of litters is 32 to 
34, which corresponds to 320 to 340 specimens. By hunting 140 specimens, 
Estonia is able to fulfil its obligations to the European Union. 
13 In the proceedings on an appeal on a point of law, the KeA pointed out that the 
management of the wolf population is based on the results of monitoring and a 
scientific analysis and that the aim of the action plan is not only to maintain the 
favourable status of the wolf, but also to manage wolves since attacks on farm and 
domestic animals are quite frequent in Estonia. The derogation from Annex IV to 
the Habitats Directive was requested by Estonia on account of the good status of 
wolves in Estonia and the potential negative impacts on other wildlife species, 
property and human health in the event of high population densities. The IUCN 
category ‘endangered’ is not assigned on the basis of the criteria laid down in the 
Habitats Directive. According to the Natura assessment methodology, the wolf in 
Estonia continues to have a favourable status. Furthermore, the status of the wolf 
under the Red List criteria has not actually deteriorated, rather the assessment 
methodology has changed. 
14 The KeA stated that the obligation to take account of economic and social aspects 
when drawing up an action plan arises from Paragraph 49(3) of the LKS. The aim 
of species protection is to ensure a balance between the favourable status of the 
EESTI SUURKISKJAD 
 
7 
species, on the one hand, and economic and social aspects, on the other. If, on the 
basis of a comprehensive assessment founded on the conclusions from the 
scientifically collected data and the best knowledge summarised in the action plan, 
the KeA concluded that the status of the species is favourable and will remain 
favourable even after the hunting quota has been met, the burden of proof to the 
contrary lies with the applicant. 
15 The KAUR stated that the recommendation of the hunting quota and structure for 
the current year was founded on population growth forecasts based on the 
previous year’s population, the number of hunted specimens, and various 
biological indicators. Any errors had been included and the precautionary 
principle had been observed. The current favourable status of the wolf (at least 15 
litters) was attained in 2007 and has not been fallen below that number since (17 
to 32 litters, 24 on average). Before the 2020 hunting season, there was reliable 
evidence of 22 litters, and on 28 December 2020 there were already 26 litters. 
Over the past 15 years, the regional distribution of wolf hunting proposals has 
taken account not only of the population density of wolves, but also the extent and 
spatial distribution of the damage which they have caused to farm and domestic 
animals. The damage caused by wolves to farm animals in 2020 was the highest 
since 2007 (1 326 sheep, 44 bovine animals, and 44 dogs were killed). The 
hunting of wolves in nature reserves and neighbouring areas has been more 
restricted. 
16 In the proceedings on an appeal on a point of law, the KAUR pointed out that the 
IUCN criteria were developed to assess the conservation status of species at a 
global level. Where an assessment is made in accordance with the Red List, the 
status of species is analysed at national level, but in the case of species with high 
territorial requirements, relatively small populations and high migratory capacity, 
such as the wolf, populations are considered at transnational level. The steering 
group for the assessment of Estonia’s Red List decided to downgrade the category 
by only one level to ‘endangered’, particularly in view of possible negative future 
scenarios. The reason for that decision was, inter alia, the worsening of public 
opinion due to the increase in the wolf population and the increase in the damage 
caused, which could lead to a political decision to reduce the wolf population 
significantly (as occurred in Sweden), and to the erection of boundary fences on 
the eastern border, which would restrict the animals’ movement. The action plan 
takes account not only of ecological, but also of economic and social aspects in 
order to determine the favourable status of the wolf population. The desired 
minimum population is determined primarily from an ecological point of view, 
while the maximum is determined from a social and economic point of view 
(tolerance limit). 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
17 Under Paragraph 1(1) of the LKS, one of the aims of the LKS is to protect nature 
by ensuring the favourable status of wildlife. Under Paragraph 3(2) of the LKS, 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-629/23 
 
8  
the status of a species is considered favourable if its population indicates that the 
species will continue to be a viable component of its natural habitat or breeding 
habitat in the distant future, if its natural range is not declining and if there is, and 
probably will continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat for the long-term 
maintenance of the species’ population. 
18 The obligation to maintain the favourable status of the species arises from the 
Habitats Directive. Article 1(i) of the directive defines the conservation status of a 
species as the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may 
affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within the 
territory referred to in Article 2 (that is to say, the European territory of the 
Member States to which the Treaty applies). Under Article 1(i), the conservation 
status will be taken as ‘favourable’ when population dynamics data on the species 
concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable 
component of its natural habitats, and the natural range of the species is neither 
being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and there is, 
and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its 
populations on a long-term basis. 
19 In view of the fact that the relevant provisions of the LKS implement the Habitats 
Directive, the terms ‘status’ and ‘conservation status’ are to be regarded as 
synonymous in this context. For reasons of clarity, below the term ‘conservation 
status’ is used throughout. 
20 Species of Community interest are listed in Annexes II, IV and/or V to the 
Habitats Directive pursuant to Article 1(g). The wolf is listed in all of those 
annexes: in Annex II, since conservation of this species requires the designation of 
special areas of conservation, and in Annex IV as an animal species of 
Community interest in need of strict protection, with the exception, however, of 
the Estonian populations listed in Annex V as an animal species of Community 
interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management 
measures. 
21 In Estonia, the preparation of an action plan for the conservation and management 
of a species is governed by Paragraph 49 of the LKS, subparagraph 1 of which 
provides for the preparation of an action plan to ensure, inter alia, a favourable 
status (that is to say, conservation status) of the species, if the results of the 
scientific survey of the species show that the measures taken so far do not ensure 
that status, or if an international obligation so requires (subparagraph 2), and the 
management of a species, if the results of the scientific survey of the species show 
that an increase in its population would have a significant negative impact on the 
environment or pose a threat to human health or property (subparagraph 3). The 
action plan must contain information on the biology, population and range of the 
species, the conditions for ensuring a favourable status of the threatened species, 
the threats, the objective of conservation or management, the priority and 
timetable of the measures necessary to achieve a favourable status of the species 
EESTI SUURKISKJAD 
 
9 
or for the management thereof, and the budget for organising conservation or 
management (subparagraph 2). 
22 The Action Plan adopted in 2012 aims, inter alia, to maintain the favourable 
conservation status of the wolf at both the Estonian and Baltic population levels. 
The action plan explains that the Baltic wolf population is part of the Eurasian 
metapopulation of wolves, whose range includes Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, north-
east Poland, Belarus, northern Ukraine and part of the Russian oblasts. The Action 
Plan states the approximate population of wolves in Latvia (as at 2008), Lithuania 
(as at 2008) and in the areas of Russia neighbouring Estonia (as at 2010). It notes 
the existence of wolf conservation or conservation and management plans in 
neighbouring countries (for example, Latvia, Belarus and Finland have such plans, 
Lithuania and Poland are in the process of preparing them, and Russia has no such 
plan) and provides information on whether wolves may be hunted in those 
countries. In the area of international cooperation, the action plan emphasises in 
particular the participation of an Estonian representative in the IUCN working 
group and links with colleagues in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Poland and Russia. Under the action plan, there is a regular exchange of 
information with Latvian colleagues on the development of large carnivore 
populations and hunting quotas. The action plan takes the view that the 
conservation status of Estonian large carnivore populations can be considered 
favourable. 
23 The 2022 Action Plan provides an overview of the genetic study of the wolf 
population conducted in 2018/2019, which resulted in a more conservative 
estimate of the wolf population of at least 65 specimens and a more optimistic 
estimate of at least 122 specimens. However, both figures were considered too 
low. According to the action plan, the number of litters in 2020 was 31. The action 
plan makes it clear that the large carnivore populations in Estonia must be 
regarded as part of the Baltic populations, but that regardless of the conservation 
status of the Baltic populations, the conservation status and sustainability of the 
local populations in Estonia are certainly also important. While the status of the 
Baltic populations is classified as ‘least concern’ according to the IUCN Red List 
criteria, the Estonian population is classified as ‘vulnerable’, with the degree of 
threat downgraded by one level on account of to the presumed good connectivity 
with neighbouring populations – if account were taken only of the status of the 
population within Estonia, the assessment would be ‘endangered’. It is likely that 
the status of the populations could deteriorate quickly if hunting pressure is too 
high or other factors (for example, diseases) arise. The wolf population threshold 
was set at 20 to 30 wolf packs with pups under one year of age before the hunting 
season and a spring number of specimens of reproductive age or a base population 
of > 140 specimens. The limit is based on the calculated size of the Baltic 
population of each species, the corresponding IUCN and LCIE recommendations 
that the total Baltic population should comprise at least 1 000 individuals of 
reproductive age, the proportion of Estonian forest habitats in the range of the 
Baltic population (approximately 20-25%) and the below-average population 
density of the Baltic range of cloven-hoofed animals as a prey species in Estonia, 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-629/23 
 
10  
as well as the estimates of the population’s age and social structure by KAUR 
wildlife monitoring specialists, and Estonia's social tolerance. The action plan 
emphasises, inter alia, overhunting and, for example, a lack of international 
cooperation as risk factors for the wolf population. 
24 In the view of the referring court, it is not clear whether, when adopting the 
measures provided for in Article 14 of the Habitats Directive, a favourable 
conservation status within the meaning of Article 1(i) must be maintained in 
respect of a regional population of a species in a particular Member State or 
whether the conservation status of the overall population (in the case of Estonia, 
the Baltic population) in the territory of the Member States can be taken into 
account. That question is relevant to the decision in the present case since the 
favourable conservation status of the Baltic wolf population is undisputed but, in 
the view of the applicant, it is not possible to consider the conservation status of 
the Estonian regional wolf population as favourable on the basis of the IUCN 
assessment. The 2022 Action Plan addresses both levels, but according to the 
defendant’s clarifications, the 2012 Action Plan takes the Baltic population level 
as a basis when assessing the compliance of the wolf population with the IUCN 
criteria. 
25 At first glance, a grammatical interpretation of the Habitats Directive would seem 
to support a broader population approach (Article 1(i) relates the conservation 
status of the species to the population ‘within the territory referred to in Article 2’, 
that is to say, ‘in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty 
applies’). On the other hand, the various obligations to ensure, monitor and report 
on the protection of the species are imposed on each Member State individually 
and not in relation to the populations as a whole. Annex IV to the directive, which 
provides for derogations from, inter alia, the rules on the protection of the wolf by 
transferring it from Annex IV to Annex V, also contains no statement on the 
population as a whole, but treats the populations of each country separately. 
26 As far as the referring court is aware, the Court of Justice has not answered that 
question clearly in its previous case-law. Although, in Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys 
Tapiola, the Court of Justice examined the need to ensure a favourable 
conservation status in the context of a derogation under Article 16 of the Habitats 
Directive and made it clear, inter alia, that the effects of the derogation on the 
various areas of the population must be assessed (paragraphs 58 and 59 of the 
judgment), it did not, however, rule in that case on which area should be taken as 
a basis when Article 14 applies or when the conservation status of the population 
differs in different areas. The Court of Justice expressly held merely that account 
should be taken of the part of the natural range of the population in question 
extending to certain parts of the territory of a third country which is not bound by 
an obligation of strict protection of species of interest for the European Union 
(ibid., paragraph 60). Consequently, in the present case account certainly cannot 
be taken of the parts of the Baltic population outside the European Union 
(including that of Russia). 
EESTI SUURKISKJAD 
 
11 
27 The 2008 European Commission guidelines make clear that there are many 
different approaches to defining a population and that a population is a 
hierarchical structure with several levels. According to the guidelines, the term 
‘population’ used in the Habitats Directive is scientifically closest to the term 
‘subpopulation’, but the guidelines use the word ‘population’ for the sake of 
simplicity (pp. 7 and 8). The guidelines recognise that the conservation status of a 
population can be most accurately assessed by evaluating the overall population 
and not the subpopulations within individual national borders (p. 23). On the other 
hand, the authors of the guidelines point out that the approach taken by the 
directive is still formally Member State-specific and that a broader approach 
would require clarification from the Commission in order to release Member 
States from the country-specific obligation (p. 26). However, a population-level 
approach would also mean that transboundary management plans, or at least the 
laying down of certain conditions in a national plan, would be required, which 
populations of neighbouring States would have to meet in order to be taken into 
consideration and take account, where necessary, of changes in the situation (that 
would require continuous monitoring of the transboundary situation through 
scientific cooperation) (p. 27). As far as the referring court is aware, there is no 
formal cooperation, at least in relation to the conservation of the wolf, but merely 
informal communication between scientists. 
28 As the Commission’s 2008 guidelines suggest, some form of transboundary 
cooperation would therefore be necessary to cover the population on a broader 
level. If, in answering the first question, the Court of Justice were to take the view 
that the conservation status of the overall population in the territory of the 
Member States is decisive to the application of Article 14 of the Habitats 
Directive, the question arises as to whether the Habitats Directive must be 
interpreted as requiring formal cooperation between the Member States to which 
the range of the population extends, in order to conserve that population, including 
the coordination of conservation and management measures or even a joint 
management plan, or whether, if that is not the case, it is sufficient for the 
Member State taking measures referred to in Article 14 of the Habitats Directive 
to determine the situation of the population of the species in the other Member 
States concerned, or whether, in addition, the national management plan must lay 
down the specific conditions which the populations of neighbouring States must 
meet in order for the measures to be carried out in the manner provided for. 
29 In the event that the Court should take the view that the conservation status of the 
regional population of a Member State must also be favourable in order to be able 
to take measures pursuant to Article 14, the question of the relationship between 
the assessment of the conservation status of the population under the Habitats 
Directive and the assessment pursuant to the IUCN Red List criteria must be 
answered. The referring court therefore asks the Court of Justice to clarify 
whether Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that 
a regional population of a species classified as vulnerable according to the criteria 
of the IUCN Red List cannot have a favourable conservation status within the 
meaning of the Habitats Directive. The reasoning of the Court of Justice in its 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-629/23 
 
12  
judgments Commission v Finland, C-342/05 (paragraphs 26 and 27) and 
Commission v Finland (Spring hunt of male common eiders), C-217/19 
(paragraphs 77 to 80), which can, however, be interpreted differently, seems to 
suggest that it must. A corresponding connection is also made in the 
Commission’s 2008 guidelines (pp. 18 to 20). 
30 In the present dispute, the defendant and the KAUR have always emphasised that 
an increase in the number of wolves would lead to severe social and economic 
conflicts in society. One of the main arguments for allowing wolf hunting is the 
need to reduce damage by wildlife. Article 2(3) of the Habitats Directive, under 
which measures taken pursuant to that directive must take account of economic, 
social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics, would 
appear to support that argument to a certain extent. In the view of the referring 
court, it is more logical to interpret the directive as meaning that economic and 
social considerations can be taken into account when selecting measures only on 
condition that the favourable conservation status of the population is guaranteed 
and that the establishment of the favourable conservation status of the population 
is a purely scientific assessment which does not depend on such non-
environmental considerations. Provided that a favourable conservation status is 
guaranteed, those considerations may support limiting population growth (see also 
the 2008 Commission guidelines, p. 24). 
31 The referring court therefore asks the Court of Justice to answer the question 
whether Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive, in conjunction with Article 2(3) 
thereof, can be interpreted as meaning that, when assessing the favourable 
conservation status of a species, account may also be taken of economic, social 
and cultural requirements.