Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2024:62
Date: 2024-01-18
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Accession;Environment;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

Summary C-601/22 – 1 
Case C-601/22 
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: 
19 September 2022 
Referring court: 
Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol (Austria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
19 September 2022 
Applicant: 
Umweltverband WWF Österreich 
ÖKOBÜRO – Allianz der Umweltbewegung 
Naturschutzbund Österreich 
Umweltdachverband 
Wiener Tierschutzverein 
Defendant authority: 
Provincial Government of Tyrol as hunting authority of first 
instance 
  
Subject matter of the case in the main proceedings 
Derogations from the system of strict protection set out in Directive 92/43/EEC, 
as most recently amended by Directive 2013/17/EU, (‘the Habitats Directive’) for 
wolves (canis lupus) – equal treatment of the Member States – Article 16 of the 
Habitats Directive – ‘favourable conservation status’ – in relation to the cross-
border ‘natural range’ of a population – interpretation of the phrases ‘serious 
damage’ and ‘satisfactory alternatives’. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-601/22 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of the Habitats Directive, reference for a preliminary ruling under 
Article 267 TFEU,  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1) Does Article 12 in conjunction with Annex IV to Directive 92/43/EEC, as 
most recently amended by Directive 2013/17/EU, according to which wolves are 
covered by the system of strict protection, exempting populations in several 
Member States, while no such exemption has been provided for Austria, infringe 
the ‘principle of equal treatment of Member States’ enshrined in Article 4(2) 
TEU? 
2) Is Article 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, as most recently amended by 
Directive 2013/17/EU, according to which a derogation from the system of strict 
protection of wolves is only permitted if, inter alia, the derogation is not 
detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned with a 
‘favourable conservation status’ in their ‘natural range’, to be interpreted as 
meaning that the favourable conservation status must be maintained or restored 
not in relation to the territory of a Member State, but to the natural range of a 
population, which may encompass a significantly larger, cross-border 
biogeographical region? 
3) Is Article 16(1)(b) of Directive 92/43/EEC, as most recently amended by 
Directive 2013/17/EU, to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to direct 
damage caused by a particular wolf, ‘serious damage’ also encompasses indirect 
(future) ‘economic’ damage that cannot be attributed to a particular wolf? 
4) Is Article 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, as most recently amended by 
Directive 2013/17/EU, to be interpreted as meaning that ‘satisfactory alternatives’ 
are to be examined purely on the basis of actual feasibility or also on the basis of 
economic criteria, given the prevailing topographical, alpine farming and business 
conditions in the Province of Tyrol? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Article 12(1) in conjunction with Annex IV, Article 16(1) of the Habitats 
Directive, Article 4(2) TEU  
Provisions of national law relied on 
Tyrolean Hunting Act 2004 (Tiroler Jagdgesetz, ‘the TJG 2004’): 
WWF AUSTRIA AND OTHERS. 
 
3 
Paragraph 36 (‘Hunting and closed seasons’), subparagraph 2: ‘Outside of the 
established hunting seasons, all wild species must be protected (closed season). 
[…]’. 
§ 52a (‘Special measures to prevent damage by bears, wolves and lynxes’): 
“(1) At the Office of the Provincial Government of Tyrol, an independent ‘Wolf – 
Bear – Lynx’ Expert Committee shall be established. […] 
(2) The Expert Committee shall comprise five members, namely the chairperson, 
two animal welfare experts, one of whom must not be in the employ of the 
Province of Tyrol, an expert from the agricultural sector and a nature conservation 
expert. […] 
(3) The Expert Committee is responsible for 
a) assessing and identifying behavioural abnormalities in bears, wolves and 
lynxes, 
b) submitting recommendations of necessary measures to be taken to the 
Provincial Government in accordance with subparagraphs 7, 8 and 9 
c) establishing the urgency of the measures under letter b) 
[…] 
 (7) The Provincial government shall 
a) if there is reason to fear that a certain bear, wolf or lynx, or several of these 
animals, pose a danger in a particular area within the meaning of subparagraph 8 
[…] 
[…] in the case set out under a), where the expert committee has made a 
recommendation and there is no satisfactory alternative, authorise suitable persons 
to track down the animal referred to under letter a) in a specific area and to fit it 
with a transmitter, allowing the animal to be located or, if it wanders into the 
immediate vicinity of farm animals or human settlements, to be repeatedly 
disturbed (scared off) using suitable means yet to be determined, in order to 
achieve a fundamental change in behaviour (aversive conditioning). […] 
(8) The Provincial Government may, on the basis of a recommendation from the 
Expert Committee, issue an ordinance to effect that a particular bear, wolf or lynx 
poses an imminent danger to the safety of persons or an imminent significant 
danger to grazing animals, agricultural crops and facilities. 
(9) Where an ordinance is issued pursued to subparagraph 8, the Provincial 
Government shall, where the Expert Committee has made a recommendation and 
there is no satisfactory alternative, and the derogation is not detrimental to the 
maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a ‘favourable 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-601/22 
 
4  
conservation status’ in their ‘natural range’, adopt a decision excluding certain 
bears, wolves or lynxes from the prohibition in the first sentence of 
Paragraph 36(2). Such exceptions may only be granted 
a) in the interest of protecting other wild fauna and flora and conserving their 
natural habitats 
b) to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water 
and other types of property; 
c) in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative 
reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic 
nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment; 
d) for the purpose of research and education. 
 (…)’ 
Paragraph 53a (‘Right of appeal of recognised environmental organisations’): 
‘(1) Recognised environmental organisations within the meaning of 
Paragraph 2(16) are entitled to […] appeal to the Regional Administrative Court 
against decisions on […] authorisations under Paragraph 52a(7) and derogations 
under subsection 9. […]’. 
Ordinance of the Provincial Government of 15 June 2004 on the implementation 
of the Tyrolean Hunting Act 2004 …(Second Implementing Ordinance of the 
Tyrolean Hunting Act 2004): 
‘Paragraph 1 (‘Hunting and closed seasons’), subparagraph 3: ‘The following 
game species are protected all year round: […] Wolf […]’ 
Ordinance of the Provincial Government of Tyrol of 26 July 2022 establishing the 
immediate significant danger posed by wolf 158MATK to grazing animals, 
agricultural crops and facilities (Wolf 158MATK Endangerment Ordinance). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 Wolves are safeguarded by a system of strict protection under the Habitats 
Directive (Article 12 in conjunction with Annex IV). Under Article 12(1)(a) of the 
Habitats Directive, for example, this prohibits all forms of deliberate capture or 
killing of specimens of these species in the wild. 
2 According to Article 16(1)(b) of the Habitats Directive, Member States may 
derogate from the provisions of Article 12 to prevent serious damage, in particular 
to livestock, provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is 
not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a 
favourable conservation status in their natural range. 
WWF AUSTRIA AND OTHERS. 
 
5 
3 In its expert report of 25 July 2022, the ‘Wolf-Bear-Lynx’ Expert Committee 
found that wolf 158MATK was responsible for killing around 20 sheep in a 
defined geographical area in the period between 10 June 2022 and 2 July 2022 
Wolf 158MATK was probably also responsible for killing a further 17 sheep in 
the period between 22 July and 24 July 2022. The report explains that wolves 
cannot not distinguish between permitted and prohibited prey, but simply take 
what is easiest to obtain. This behaviour poses an immediate danger to grazing 
animals, as the pastures on which the wolf 158MATK has been genetically 
detected to date are alpine pastures that cannot be protected. Wolf 158MATK is 
therefore not behaving abnormally, but is to be classified as an animal repeatedly 
exhibiting undesirable behaviour. According to the documents available, livestock 
protection is currently not possible in this area, which is why there is immediate 
significant danger to grazing animals. Therefore, the report concludes, as there is 
no satisfactory alternative, removal of this animal from the wild is recommended. 
4 The ordinance of the Tyrolean Provincial Government of 26 July 2022 establishes, 
on the basis of the expert opinion of 25 July 2022 pursuant to Paragraph 52a(8) of 
the TJG 2004, that the wolf with the designation 158MATK poses an imminent 
significant danger to grazing animals, agricultural crops and facilities. The 
ordinance came into force on 29 July 2022 and applies for an unlimited period. 
5 In the first paragraph of its decision of 29 July 2022, the defendant authority 
exempted the wolf species (canis lupus) from the prohibition set out in the first 
sentence of Paragraph 36(2) of the TJG 2004 (year-round protection) as of the 
issuing of the decision, so as to remove an animal in order to prevent serious 
damage to crops and livestock in specified hunting zones, and stated that the 
temporary exemption would be in place until 31 October 2022 (the end of the 
Alpine farming season), and would cease to apply before this deadline if 
molecular biological tracking clearly detected Wolf 158MATK outside of the 
target area on multiple occasions. A cartographic representation of the affected 
hunting zones was attached to the decision as an integral part thereof (‘the target 
area’). In the second point, it established that any appeal against this decision 
would not have a suspensive effect. 
6 Five recognised environmental organisations filed an appeal against this decision 
in due time, which led to the proceedings before the Landesverwaltungsgericht 
Tirol (Regional Administrative Court, Tyrol). In its order of 22 August 2022, the 
referring court upheld these appeals with regard to the second point of the 
contested decision and thus restored the suspensive effect.  
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 The environmental organisations submit that the existence of an derogation 
(objective) pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive has not been clearly, 
precisely and comprehensively demonstrated or conclusively proven, that the 
decision does not refer to a specific individual in a sufficiently transparent 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-601/22 
 
6  
manner, that satisfactory alternatives are available and a blanket assessment of 
alternatives was carried out without taking into account the available scientific 
and technical knowledge, that the unfavourable conservation status could 
deteriorate further and potential effects on this status were not analysed in 
accordance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive, and that the assertions 
of the Expert Committee were questionable. 
8 In the decision, the defendant authority stated that the derogation applied to one 
wolf, and that measures to prevent the wrong wolf being shot primarily consisted 
of limiting the time period and area in which the derogation applies on expert 
advice. Since a geographical restriction on non-territorial wolves can only be valid 
for a limited period of time, the period for which the derogation is granted must 
also be precisely defined in a derogation decision. On the basis of the sheep deaths 
attributed to wolf 158MATK, experts identified an area which represented, as 
accurately as possible, the presumed range of wolf 158MATK. This area 
encompasses 39 spatially adjacent hunting zones, which are located in the hunting 
districts of Vorderes Wipptal and Mittelgebirge Ost and Unterinntal-Süd. Firstly, 
this area was used as basis for assessing the localised evidence (i.e. concerning the 
feasibility of protecting of the affected Alpine pastures) in the preliminary 
investigation and, secondly, it formed the area to which the derogation was limited 
pursuant to Paragraph 52a(9) of the TJG 2004. According to a decision of the 
Regional Administrative Court of 1 December 2021, the authority had to 
investigate whether there was a high degree of probability that only the wolf to be 
removed was present in the target area and whether it was possible to increase the 
likelihood of removing the ‘right wolf’, i.e. the wolf referred to in the 
Endangerment Ordinance. In accordance with this decision, the authority obtained 
an expert opinion from a competent specialist, who came to the conclusion that 
there was a high degree of probability that only wolf 158MATK was currently 
present in the target area. 
9 The Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community 
interest under the Habitats Directive, C [2021] 7301 final, 124) states that: 
‘[Article 16 of the Habitats Directive] aims to avoid serious damages, and 
therefore it does not require the damage to have occurred. However, the 
likelihood of serious damage, beyond normal business risk, needs to be 
demonstrated and there must also be enough evidence to justify that any lethal 
control method used under the derogation is effective, proportionate and 
sustainable in preventing or limiting the serious damage’. In the authority’s view, 
these exceptional conditions are met: As the report from the government-
appointed agriculture expert showed, in addition to the purely economic loss 
resulting from the slaughter of the 20 sheep and a further 17 sheep, losses were 
also incurred in other respects: 402 sheep and goats were herded down from 
Alpine pastures earlier than planned, resulting in a direct loss of EUR 9 990 
attributable to the wolf with designation 158MATK, due to the enforced 
premature herding of the animals. According to this expert report, although the 
direct monetary losses caused by the wolf with designation 158MATK are to be 
classified as “manageable”, there are also indirect economic effects in relation to 
WWF AUSTRIA AND OTHERS. 
 
7 
loss of breeding value on the farms, additional expenditure in order to care and 
provide for animals brought down from mountain pastures to the lowland farm, 
and long-term reduction in livestock farming at lowland farms when mountain 
pasture farms are closed. Indirect damage is also caused through losing ‘the joy of 
livestock farming’ and the psychological stress for Alpine pasture farmers and 
breeders. Impacts on local sheep farming, in particular the threat of farm closures 
and the associated reduction of the total animal population, have further adverse 
consequences on other system services: The mere non-consumption of fodder 
grass threatens to cause damage to the Alpine pastures in the affected area of up to 
EUR 1.5 million annually and capitalised losses of EUR 51.6 million. In the long 
term, there is a risk of Alpine pasture farms being shut down and of soil erosion, 
which would reduce the total value of the Alpine pastures in the area in question 
(socio-economic replacement value EUR 137.7 million). In addition, the potential 
abandonment of alpine farming would have a detrimental impact on biodiversity 
and tourism. 
10 According to the defendant authority, “there is no satisfactory alternative within 
the meaning of Article 16 of the Habitats Directive”. Depending on the specific 
situation, the “Austrian Wolf Management Plan” advocates firstly providing 
information and education and increasing the protection of the herd if possible, 
and then, if the situation does not improve, removing the animal in question, in 
each case after an individual assessment by the competent authority. Removing an 
adult wolf from the wild and keeping it permanently in captivity is not 
recommended by this Plan and is not an appropriate more lenient measure. It 
should be assumed that wolves which have previously lived in the wild could not 
adapt to life in captivity and permanently keeping these animals in captivity would 
cause them prolonged, considerable suffering. Likewise, herd protection measures 
did not constitute a satisfactory alternative in the area in question. The report from 
the government-appointed agriculture expert shows that all 61 Alpine pastures in 
the affected area either cannot be protected or cannot be protected without 
resorting to unreasonable and disproportionate measures. 
11 Regarding the ‘conservation status’, the defendant authority makes reference to 
the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’), 
according to which conservation status is to be determined in particular at national 
level or, if the natural range of the species so requires and, to the extent possible, 
at a cross-border level (judgments of the Court of 10 October 2019, 
Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola, C-674/17, EU:C:2019:85, paragraph 68 and of 
14 June 2007, Commission v Finland, C-342/05, EU:C:2007:341, paragraph 29). 
The existence of an unfavourable conservation status does not in itself render the 
derogation inviable, provided that there is sufficient evidence that said derogation 
will not cause the unfavourable conservation status to worsen or prevent 
restoration of a favourable conservation status (judgment of the Court of 
10 October 2019, Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola, C-674/17, EU:C:2019:85, 
paragraph 66). As the report of the external expert of 28 July 2022 shows, the 
favourable conservation status of the Alpine population of the species in question 
would not be affected by the removal of one specimen. Even considering Austria 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-601/22 
 
8  
in isolation, where the conservation status is not yet favourable, there is no reason 
to expect a deterioration in the unfavourable conservation status or any hindrance 
to restoration of a favourable conservation status.  
12 The mood in Tyrol is very tense due to the return of large predators (especially the 
wolf). In 2019 there was an illegal shooting in the municipality of Seilrain in Tirol 
(the decapitated body of wolf 65 MATK was found in the woods). This animal 
had allegedly killed 30 sheep on Alpine pastures in this area. Since wolf 
158MATK has already been responsible for a similar number of attacks in the 
area that is the subject of these proceedings, a clear and immediate enforcement of 
the derogation seems to be necessary, in order to protect other wolves without 
behavioural issues. This is also recognised by the Court as a reason to implement 
a derogation pursuant to Article 16 of the Habitats Directive (judgment of the 
Court of 10 October 2019, Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola, C-674/17, 
EU:C:2019:85, paragraph 43; see also the Guidance document on the strict 
protection of animal species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive, 
C [2021] 7301 final, 127). 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
13 Although the present case is based on a decision authorising a derogation from the 
prohibition in the first sentence of Paragraph 36(2) of the TJG 2004 in relation to 
one wolf, which expires on 31 October 2022, the referring court nevertheless 
considers it necessary, taking into account the expected duration of the 
proceedings, to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling even after 
this deadline has expired, since the contested decision of the defendant authority 
of 29 July 2022 is based on the ‘Wolf 158MATK Endangerment Ordinance’, 
which is not time limited. Therefore, a new, temporary derogation from the 
prohibition in the first sentence of Paragraph 36(2) of the TJG 2004 could be 
issued for a wolf at any time by means of a decision based on this Ordinance. 
14 The first question referred: Greek populations north of the 39th parallel, Estonian 
populations, Bulgarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish and Slovakian populations, 
Finnish populations within the reindeer conservation area and Spanish populations 
north of the Duero are exempt from the system of strict protection under the 
Habitats Directive (Annex IV to the Habitats Directive). This distinction may have 
been correct when the Habitats Directive, was first adopted, but is no longer 
appropriate today due to the development of the wolf population across Europe. In 
the meantime, the prevailing circumstances affecting wolves have changed 
significantly in terms of the conservation status of the European (sub)populations, 
and the merging and genetic exchange between these populations. Long-distance 
migrations over several to many hundreds of kilometres are typical for wolves of 
both sexes during the stage of life in which they leave their natal pack, and have 
been documented on numerous occasions.  
WWF AUSTRIA AND OTHERS. 
 
9 
15 The derogation concerning Finnish populations within the reindeer conservation 
area serves to protect the reindeer and, in conjunction therewith, to protect the 
Sámi people living in this area. Alpine farming has been practised in the Alpine 
region for generations. The growing wolf population is increasingly leading to 
deaths of livestock. In this respect, these farm animals and the farmers who keep 
them are now in a situation comparable to that of animals and farmers in some 
other Member States. 
16 According to Article 4(2) TEU, the Union shall respect the equality of Member 
States before the Treaties. It follows that those Member States which have 
territory in the Alpine region in which Alpine farming takes place would 
sometimes require an exemption from the system of strict protection for wolves, 
given that other Member States in a comparable situation already have such a 
derogation (Article 14 in conjunction with Annex V to the Habitats Directive). 
17 It is apparent from Article 191(3) TFEU that, in preparing its policy on the 
environment, the European Union is required to take account of available 
scientific and technical data, environmental conditions in the various regions of 
the European Union, the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action as 
well as the economic and social development of the European Union as a whole 
and the balanced development of its regions. This ensures the obligatory equal 
treatment of Member States (judgment of the Court of 13 March 2019, Poland v 
Parliament and Council, C-128/17, EU:C:2019:194, paragraph 134). The different 
levels of protection for wolves in the Habitats Directive could be in conflict with 
primary law if and in so far as Member States, including Austria, are currently in 
the same or at least comparable situations. 
18 The second question referred: The favourable conservation status is to be 
determined, ‘in particular at national level […] or if the natural range of the 
species so requires and, to the extent possible, at a cross-border level’ (judgment 
of the Court of 10 October 2019, Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola, C-674/17, 
EU:C:2019:85, paragraph 58). This applies to the wolf in particular: Due to high 
fertility and extensive migratory movements, wolves can rapidly occupy new 
habitats and establish links between different subpopulations. Due to the wolf 
progressively repopulating Europe, individual populations can now no longer be 
considered isolated. 
19 The Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community 
interest under the Habitats Directive, C (2021) 7301 final, pages 76 and 79, states 
as follows: In line with the harmonised reporting framework agreed for Article 17 
of the Directive, the overall conservation status of a species in a Member State is 
evaluated at a biogeographic level in each Member State. But to assess the impact 
of a specific derogation, this should be done at a lower level (e.g. site, population 
level) in order to be meaningful in the specific context of the derogation. […]No 
derogation can be granted if it has – at any level – a detrimental effect on the 
conservation status or on the attainment of favourable conservation status for a 
species. In other words, if a derogation is likely to have a significantly negative 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-601/22 
 
10  
effect on the population concerned (or the prospects of this population) or even on 
a local population within a Member State, the competent authority should not 
grant it. The net result of a derogation should be neutral or positive for the 
relevant populations of the species. 
20 As result of this, the question arises as to whether, from when and under which 
conditions a larger biogeographical region, such as the Alps, may be specifically 
taken as a basis, taking into account parameters such as residential areas or Alpine 
farming but disregarding local factors, in order to fulfil, if need be by means of 
agreements between the Alpine countries, the conditions for regulated removal by 
setting removal quotas, in particular considering the annually increasing wolf 
populations. 
21 The third question referred: The Guidance document on the strict protection of 
animal species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive, C(2021) 7301 
final, page 60 and 61, states that: ‘The Court specified that “Article 16(1) of the 
Habitats Directive does not require serious damage to be sustained before 
derogating measures can be adopted”. As this provision is intended to prevent 
serious damage, it is not necessary that the serious damage itself has already 
occurred; likelihood of serious damage occurring is sufficient. However, the mere 
chance that damage might occur does not suffice; the likelihood that damage will 
occur must be high, and so must the extent of the damage. The high probability of 
serious damage occurring must be demonstrated by sufficient evidence. There 
must also be sufficient evidence that the risk of serious damage is largely 
attributable to the species targeted by the derogation and that there must be a 
strong likelihood that serious damage would occur if action is not taken. Past 
experience should demonstrate a high probability of the occurrence of damage’. 
22 Although ‘serious damage’ is to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and in light of 
the specific problem, there is no case-law from the European Court of Justice as to 
whether ‘serious damage’ only constitutes the direct financial damage caused by a 
specific wolf, e.g. through the loss of the animals killed, for which, however, the 
livestock owner is compensated by the public authorities, or through the costs of 
the additional fodder required due to herding down from the Alps earlier than 
planned, or whether it also includes indirect (future) damage which cannot be 
directly attributed to a specific wolf, such as losses due to the non-consumption of 
fodder grass, encroachment of woodland, scrub and bush, erosion, and the loss of 
biodiversity and attractive landscape, which is very important for leisure and 
tourism. 
23 The fourth question referred: According to Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive, 
provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and further conditions are met, 
Member States may derogate from the provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 (a) 
and (b). The Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of 
Community interest under the Habitats Directive, C(2021) 7301 final, 127, states 
that: ‘For example, in the case of livestock damages, before authorising 
derogations, it is necessary to prioritise non-lethal alternatives and to correctly 
WWF AUSTRIA AND OTHERS. 
 
11 
implement appropriate and reasonable preventive measures in order to reduce 
depredation risks, such as supervision by shepherds, the use of livestock guarding 
dogs, the protection of livestock by fences or alternative management of livestock 
(e.g. calving/lambing control). Only when such alternative actions have been 
implemented and have proved to be ineffective or only partly effective, or when 
this kind of alternative actions cannot be implemented for the specific case, may 
the derogations be authorised to resolve the (residual) problem’. 
24 According to the report from the official expert for agriculture, the Report on 
Agriculture and Forestry in Tyrol (‘the Green Report’), agriculture in Tyrol is for 
the most part very small-scale and is characterised by family holdings with 
farming as their principal or subsidiary business. This assessment is also reflected 
in the target area to be assessed, if 8.6 roughage-consuming large animal units 
were herded per livestock owner during summer in the Alps in 2021. The small-
scale nature of the agricultural holdings in Tyrol and in the target area means that, 
regarding livestock depredation by the wolf or wolves in question, these attacks 
have a much greater impact on small holdings than on a large holding. 
25 The lack of a satisfactory alternative with regard to herd protection measures was 
assessed by the defendant authority, based on the report from the government-
appointed agriculture expert. The government-appointed agriculture expert came 
to the conclusion that the 61 Alpine pastures in the target area either cannot be 
protected, or cannot be protected without resorting to unreasonable and 
disproportionate measures, on the basis of specific criteria (feasibility of 
protection using herd protection fences, for example with steep slopes, roads and 
paths, watercourses and so forth; feasibility of protection with shepherding and 
herd protection fences – neither reasonable nor proportionate if the number of 
herded sheep and goats in a single pasture or meadow is fewer than 500 or if the 
number of herders with sheep and/or goats in one pasture/meadow is more than 
10. 
26 Is the assessment of ‘satisfactory alternatives’ by applying (exclusion) criteria 
developed on the basis of geodata and alphanumeric data, which apply beyond the 
individual case and which relate only to herd protection fences and herding with 
guard dogs, sufficient? The European Commission assumes that there is no 
satisfactory alternative when ‘this kind of alternative actions cannot be 
implemented for the specific case.’ Does practicability depend on economic 
criteria or on simple non-feasibility? Due to the average size of farms, herd 
protection measures can reduce the annual yield, if any, of a small farm to a 
considerable extent or eradicate it entirely.