Case C-674/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 1 December 2017 — Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry
Date: 2017-12-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biodiversity, hunting regulations, protected area, protection of animals








C_2018063EN.01000701.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 1 December 2017 — Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry
(Case C-674/17)
(2018/C 063/10)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry

Other parties: Suomen riistakeskus, Risto Mustonen, Kai Ruhanen

Questions referred







1.


Can regionally restricted derogation permits based on applications from individual hunters be granted for hunting for ‘population management purposes’ under Article 16(1)(e) of the Habitats Directive, (1) having regard to the wording of that provision?






—


In considering that question, is it relevant that the discretion exercised when deciding on derogation permits is governed by a national population management plan and by the maximum number of individual animals killed laid down in a regulation, under which derogation permits may be granted annually for the territory of the Member State?










—


As part of that consideration, may account be taken of other factors, such as the objective of preventing harm to dogs and increasing the general feeling of security?














2.


Can derogation permits be granted for hunting for population management purposes, as described in the first question, on the basis that there is no satisfactory alternative within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive to prevent poaching?






—


In such circumstances, may account be taken of the practical difficulties associated with the monitoring of illegal poaching?










—


In considering whether a satisfactory alternative exists, is the objective of preventing harm to dogs and increasing the general feeling of security also potentially a relevant factor?














3.


How is the requirement laid down in Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive concerning the conservation status of species’ populations to be assessed when regionally restricted derogation permits are granted?






—


Is the conservation status of a species to be assessed by reference both to a particular area and to the territory of the Member State as a whole or by reference to an even wider range of the species in question?










—


Is it possible to satisfy the requirements for granting a derogation permit laid down in Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive even though the conservation status of a species cannot be regarded as favourable within the meaning of the directive on the basis of a proper assessment?










—


If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, in which circumstances could that be possible?










(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).