62023CJ0629_RES
Case C‑629/23
MTÜ Eesti Suurkiskjad
v
Keskkonnaamet
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus)
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2025
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43/EEC – First subparagraph of Article 1(i) – Conservation status of a species – Concept – Article 14 – Management measures – Taking in the wild and exploitation compatible with the maintenance or restoration of the species at a favourable conservation status – Second subparagraph of Article 1(i) – Assessment whether the conservation status of the species concerned is favourable – Cumulative conditions – Canis lupus (wolf) – Classification in the ‘vulnerable’ category of the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s ‘Red List’ – Animal species forming part of a population whose natural range extends beyond the territory of a Member State – Taking account of exchanges with populations of the same species present in neighbouring Member States or in third countries – Article 2(3) – Taking account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics)
Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Animal species of Community interest – Management measures – Member States’ discretion – Limits – Maintenance of the species at a favourable conservation status – Evaluation criteria – Taking account of the local and national level and, as the case may be, of the cross-border level
(Art. 191(2) TFEU; Council Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2013/17, fifteenth recital and Arts 1(i), first subpara., 2(2), 11, 14(1) and 16, and Annex V(a))
(see paragraphs 37-48)
Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Obligation to carry out surveillance of the conservation status – Concept of favourable conservation status – Need to ensure that the situation is sustainable – Criteria for assessment – Taking account of the cross-border level
(Council Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2013/17, Arts 1(i), second subpara., 11 and 14(1))
(see paragraphs 49-66, operative part 1)
Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Animal species of Community interest – Management measures – Maintenance of the species at a favourable conservation status – Evaluation criteria – Taking account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics – Limits
(Council Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2013/17, Arts 1(i), second subpara., 2(2), 11 and 14(1), and Annex V(a))
(see paragraphs 67-71, operative part 2)
Résumé
Ruling on a request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Supreme Court, Estonia), the Court answers several questions relating to the protection of the wolf (Canis lupus) under the Habitats Directive (
1
) and, in particular, Article 14 thereof, (
2
) which permits the adoption of measures such as the restriction of hunting, in principle authorised in Estonia, (
3
) where such a restriction proves necessary for the maintenance of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status.
In 2020, the competent Estonian authority set, by way of an order, a quota for wolf hunting for the 2020 to 2021 hunting season in Estonia. The applicant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law in the main proceedings (‘the applicant in the main proceedings’), an Estonian environmental protection association, challenged the legality of that order, arguing that the premiss on which that order is based, that is to say, that the conservation status of the wolf is favourable in Estonia, is incorrect.
In that regard, the ‘favourable’ conservation status of the Baltic population of the wolf – in turn part of the Eurasian population of that animal species, whose natural range extends to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the north-east of Poland and certain neighbouring third countries – is not disputed. However, in the light of the classification of the Estonian regional population by the International Union for Nature Conservation (IUCN), that population cannot be regarded, according to the applicant in the main proceedings, as having such a conservation status.
Hearing an appeal on a point of law brought by that party against the dismissal of its challenge to that order, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive, which defines the concept of the conservation status of a species and the conditions for determining whether the conservation status of a species is favourable, must be interpreted as meaning that classification in the ‘vulnerable’ category of the IUCN Red List of the population of an animal species present within the territory of a Member State precludes the conservation status of that species, within that Member State’s territory, from being taken as ‘favourable’ within the meaning of that provision. Furthermore, that court seeks to ascertain, in essence, whether Article 1(i) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that the adoption, by a Member State, of management measures under Article 14(1) thereof entails an obligation to ensure that the conservation status of the population of that species present within the territory of that Member State is favourable or whether that Member State may take into consideration the conservation status of the whole population, whose natural range extends beyond the territory of that Member State and, as the case may be, to what extent and under what conditions it may do so.
In that context, the referring court also asks whether economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics may be taken into account when assessing the conservation status of a species.
Findings of the Court
In the first place, the Court states that the discretion of Member States in determining whether it is necessary to adopt measures under Article 14(1) of the Habitats Directive is limited by the obligation to ensure that the taking in the wild of specimens of a species and their exploitation are compatible with that species’ being maintained at a favourable conservation status. In particular, where an animal species has an unfavourable conservation status, the competent authorities must take measures within the meaning of that provision in order to improve the conservation status of the species concerned in such a way that, in future and in a sustainable manner, its populations are maintained at a favourable status.
The favourable conservation status of the populations of the species concerned in their natural range must exist and be assessed, in the first place and necessarily, at local and national level. If the conservation status of a species is not favourable in a Member State to whose territory its natural range extends, at least potentially, that species cannot fulfil its ecological function there, or at least not to its full extent, even if the population of the species concerned present in that Member State is part of a population whose conservation status is favourable.
That said, the classification of the national population of a species in the ‘vulnerable’ category of the IUCN Red List does not preclude, as such, the conservation status of that species, within the territory of the Member State concerned, from nevertheless being taken as favourable if the cumulative conditions laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive are satisfied.
In that regard, the populations of an animal species, in particular the wolf, that are present also in the other Member States or third countries neighbouring the one that is planning to adopt management measures under Article 14(1) of the Habitats Directive will be relevant for the latter Member State so as to ascertain whether or not the conservation status of the population of that species present within its territory is favourable. Their relevance depends on whether there are exchanges between those populations, which are capable of being an influence acting on the species that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of that population within that territory.
In cases where a situation is satisfactory at the present moment, it must still be ensured that that situation is sustainable in order to find that the conservation status of a species is favourable.
In that respect, account should be taken, in particular, first, of any foreseeable change which may affect the exchanges between the population present in the Member State concerned and the other populations that are part of the same population. Second, account should be taken of the level of legal protection enjoyed by the species concerned in the neighbouring Member States and third countries. Third, even greater weight must be attached to the relationships with the populations of other States where the Member States and third countries concerned not only apply comparable legal protection rules, but cooperate with a view to protecting the species concerned and coordinate, for example, their protective measures in such a way as to optimise the exchanges between the populations concerned.
Furthermore, in order to ensure that the taking in the wild of specimens of a species and their exploitation are compatible with that species’ being maintained at a favourable conservation status, it may prove necessary for the Member State within whose territory a wolf population forming part of a population whose natural range extends beyond that territory is present, when it is planning to take into consideration exchanges between the wolf population present within that territory and those present in neighbouring Member States or third countries, to share with those Member States and third countries information on cross-border movements observed in specimens of that species and on the management measures that those Member States or third countries are taking or intend to take in respect of the populations present within their respective territories. First, such exchanges of information can render more precise the assessment, by the Member State concerned, of the size of its own population. Second, seeking information on the management measures applied or envisaged by the relevant Member States or third countries may be necessary in order for the Member State concerned to be able to ensure that the species in question can be regarded as in fact having a favourable conservation status within its territory. Lastly, information on the measures applied or envisaged by neighbouring Member States or third countries may be necessary for the Member State concerned to ensure that the measures that it is planning to take in respect of that species will be compatible with that species’ being maintained at a favourable conservation status within its territory.
In the second place, the Court states that the economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics referred to in Article 2(3) of the Habitats Directive, which, moreover, do not constitute an autonomous derogation from the general system of protection put in place by that directive, cannot be relied on in order to disregard the obligation to ensure that the taking in the wild of specimens of a species and their exploitation are compatible with that species’ being maintained at a favourable conservation status, an obligation which limits the discretion enjoyed by the Member States under Article 14 of that directive. It is only within the limits of that discretion that the Member States are in principle authorised to take account of those requirements and characteristics.
(
1
)	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), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193) (‘the Habitats Directive’).
(
2
)	See Article 14(1) of the Habitats Directive: ‘If, in the light of the surveillance provided for in Article 11, Member States deem it necessary, they shall take measures to ensure that the taking in the wild of specimens of species of wild fauna and flora listed in Annex V as well as their exploitation is compatible with their being maintained at a favourable conservation status.’
(
3
)	Since the Estonian wolf populations are listed in Annex V(a) to the Habitats Directive and may therefore be hunted. Those populations thus constitute an exception to the general rule that the hunting of the wolf is, in principle, prohibited under Article 12 of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex IV(a) thereto.