Case C-674/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry (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 of animal species — Annex IV — Canis lupus (wolf) — Article 16(1)(e) — Derogation allowing the taking of certain specimens in limited numbers — Hunting for population management purposes — Evaluation of the conservation status of populations of the species concerned)
Date: 2019-10-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biodiversity, cross-border cooperation, hunting regulations, protected area, protection of animals, wolf








C_2019423EN.01000201.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/2






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry
(Case C-674/17) (1)

(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 of animal species - Annex IV - Canis lupus (wolf) - Article 16(1)(e) - Derogation allowing the taking of certain specimens in limited numbers - Hunting for population management purposes - Evaluation of the conservation status of populations of the species concerned)
(2019/C 423/02)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry

Other interested parties: Risto Mustonen, Kai Ruhanen, Suomen riistakeskus

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1)(e) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as precluding the adoption of decisions granting derogations from the prohibition on the deliberate killing of wolves laid down in Article 12(1)(a), read in conjunction with Annex IV(a) to that directive, by way of hunting for population management purposes, the objective of which is to combat poaching, where:






—


the objective pursued by such derogations is not stated in a clear and precise manner and where, in the light of rigorous scientific data, the national authority is unable to establish that the derogations are appropriate with a view to achieving that objective,










—


it is not duly established that their objective cannot be attained by means of a satisfactory alternative, the mere existence of an illegal activity or difficulties associated with its monitoring not constituting sufficient evidence in that regard,










—


it is not guaranteed that the derogations will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range,










—


the derogations have not been subject to an assessment of the conservation status of the populations of the species concerned and of the impact that the envisaged derogation may have on it, at the level of the territory of that Member State or, where applicable, at the level of the biogeographical region in question where the borders of that Member State straddle several biogeographical regions or where the natural range of the species so requires and, to the extent possible, at cross-border level, and










—


not all conditions are satisfied in relation to the taking, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, under strictly supervised conditions, in limited and specified numbers, of specimens of the species listed in Annex IV to that directive, compliance with which must be established in particular by reference to the population level, its conservation status and its biological characteristics, are satisfied.
It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case in the main proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.