Case C‑88/19
Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor
v
TM and Others
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Zărnești)
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 11 June 2020
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43/EEC – Article 12(1) – System of strict protection for animal species – Annex IV – Wolf (Canis lupus) – Article 16(1) – Natural range – Capture and transport of a wild animal specimen of the species Canis lupus – Public safety)
1.        Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Strict protection of the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) – Necessary measures to establish a system of protection
(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 12(1)(a) and Annex IV(a))
(see paragraphs 22, 23)
2.        Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Strict protection of the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) – Prohibition of capture or killing of protected animal species – Derogations – Conditions – Derogation granted by the competent national authority – Conditions for granting such a derogation
(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 12(1)(a), Art. 16(1) and Annex IV(a))
(see paragraphs 24-26, 53-60 and operative part)
3.        Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Strict protection of the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) – Prohibition of capture or killing of protected animal species – Scope – Protection within the natural range of the protected animal species – Concept – Geographical area in which the protected animal species is present in the course of its natural behaviour – Human settlement areas – Included
(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 12(1)(a) and Annex IV(a))
(see paragraphs 28-52 and operative part)
4.        Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Strict protection of the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) – Prohibition of capture or killing of protected animal species – Scope – Specimens of protected animal species living in nature or in the wild
(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 12(1)(a) and Annex IV(a))
(see paragraph 44)
Résumé
The strict protection of certain animal species under the Habitats Directive also extends to specimens that leave their natural habitat and are in human settlement areas. Thus, the capture and transport of a wolf found in a village can be justified only if it is subject to a derogation adopted by the competent national authority
By its judgment in Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor (C‑88/19), delivered on 11 June 2020, the Court ruled on the territorial scope of the system of strict protection for certain animal species laid down in Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) (‘the Habitats Directive’). The Court confirmed that that system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) of that directive, such as the wolf, also applies to specimens that leave their natural habitat and are in human settlement areas.
In 2016, workers of an association for the protection of animals, accompanied by a veterinary surgeon, captured and transported, without prior authorisation, a wolf that had been present on the property of a resident of a Romanian village located between two major sites protected under the Habitats Directive. The transport of the captured wolf to a nature reserve did not, however, go as planned and the wolf managed to escape into the surrounding forest. A criminal complaint was lodged for offences related to the capture and transport, in unsatisfactory conditions, of a wolf. In the context of those criminal proceedings, the referring court asks whether the protective provisions of the Habitats Directive are applicable to the capture of wild wolves on the outskirts of a town or on the territory of a local authority.
The Court first recalled that Article 12(1)(a) of the Habitats Directive requires Member States to take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection of protected animal species ‘in their natural range’, prohibiting any form of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species ‘in the wild’.
With regard to the territorial scope of that prohibition of deliberate capture or killing, the Court pointed out that, concerning the protected animal species, such as the wolf, ranging over wide areas, the concept of ‘natural range’ is larger than the geographical area which provides the physical or biological factors essential to their life and reproduction and, thus, corresponds to the geographical area in which the animal species concerned is present or distributed in the course of its natural behaviour. It follows that the protection under Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive has no limits or boundaries, so that a wild specimen of a protected animal species found near or within areas of human settlement, transiting through such areas or feeding on man-made resources cannot be regarded as an animal that has left its ‘natural range’. That interpretation is supported by the definition in Article 1(1)(f) of the Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals (2), under which the concept of the ‘range’ of a species takes into account areas of all kinds which the species crosses.
In the view of the Court, therefore, the wording of Article 12(1)(a) of the Habitats Directive, which prohibits the deliberate capture or killing of specimens of those protected species ‘in the wild’, does not allow for the exclusion of human settlement areas from the scope of protection of that provision. The use of the words ‘in the wild’ is intended only to make it clear that the prohibitions under that provision do not necessarily apply to specimens lawfully held in captivity.
The interpretation under which the protection under Article 12(1)(a) of the Habitats Directive has no limits or strict boundaries is also such as to enable the objective pursued by that provision to be attained. The aim is to protect not only the species concerned in certain places restrictively defined, but also the specimens of those species that live in nature or in the wild, and thus that have a function in natural ecosystems. In that respect, the Court also pointed out that, in many regions of the European Union, such as that at issue in this case, wolves live in areas occupied by man and the anthropogenic influence on those areas also led to a partial adaptation of wolves to those new conditions. In addition, infrastructure development, illegal logging, farming and some industrial activities put pressure on the wolf population and its habitat.
Accordingly, the Court found that the obligation to strictly protect the protected animal species applies to the entire ‘natural range’ of those species, whether they are in their usual habitat, in protected areas or in the vicinity of human settlements.
With regard to the management of situations which may arise if a specimen of a protected animal species comes into contact with humans or their property, in particular, conflicts resulting from the occupation of natural areas by humans, the Court went on to recall that it is for the Member States to adopt a comprehensive legislative framework, which may include, in accordance with Article 16(1)(b) and (c) of the Habitats Directive, measures intended to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops or livestock, or measures taken in the interests of public health or public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature.
Thus, the Court confirmed that the capture and transport of a specimen of a protected animal species, such as a wolf, may be carried out only in the context of a derogation adopted by the competent national authority under Article 16(1)(b) and (c) of the Habitats Directive, based, inter alia, on grounds of public safety.
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).
2      Council Decision 82/461/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the conclusion of the Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals, signed in Bonn on 23 June 1979 (OJ 1982 L 210, p. 10).