Case T-634/25: Action brought on 16 September 2025 – GzSdW v Parliament and Others
Date: 2025-09-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European convention, discretionary power, livestock farming, precautionary principle, principle of proportionality, protected species, protection of animal life, wolf




C_202506186EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6186


24.11.2025






             (*1)


Action brought on 16 September 2025 – GzSdW v Parliament and Others


(Case T-634/25)

(C/2025/6186)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Gesellschaft zum Schutz der Wölfe e. V. (GzSdW) (XX) (**)(represented by: K. Kühn, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Directive (EU) 2025/1237 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2025; (1)











—


order the defendants to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.






—


In adopting the directive, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement of points 12, 13 and 19 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making, (2) Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament (3) and Article 2(1) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure. (4)















2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 191(3) and (1) TFEU.






—


In adopting the directive, the applicant claims that the defendant institutions did not take into account the available scientific data. They failed to fully assess or take into account the environmental conditions in the individual regions of the EU and the advantages and disadvantages of taking action or failing to take action. The EU Institutions’ reversal regarding the protection status of the wolf is not scientifically justified. The conservation status of the wolf and the question of what impact a change in its protection status would have on the wolf and its role in the ecosystem have not yet been determined scientifically. In addition, the assumption that facilitating the killing of wolves could significantly reduce livestock kills ignores the available scientific data. The data proves that herd protection measures are the most effective means of reducing livestock kills. The EU has therefore made manifest errors of assessment. Furthermore, downgrading the protection status of the wolf is not in line with the objectives of the EU’s environmental policy.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the precautionary principle and infringement of Article 191(1) and (2) TFEU read in conjunction with Article 3(3) TEU.






—


The applicant claims that the directive breaches the precautionary principle because there is uncertainty as to whether downgrading the protection status of the wolf is likely to jeopardise the maintenance of the species at a favourable conservation status. In those circumstances, that measure, which may have uncertain negative impacts on the environment, should be abandoned.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to exercise discretion.






—


The applicant claims that the EU failed to recognise and exercise its discretion to adopt a stricter protection status than that required by the Bern Convention. (5)















5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.






—


The applicant claims that the directive was adopted on the basis of incorrect or incomplete data, leading to a breach of the principle of proportionality. The downgrading of the protection status is also disproportionate. The facilitation of culling and hunting is not an effective means of significantly reducing livestock kills. Research shows that hunting is only effective in reducing livestock kills if the population is significantly reduced over large areas. However, this would be contrary to EU law, even following a reduction in the level of protection. Targeted culling of wolves could only reduce livestock kills in conjunction with herd protection measures, with the effectiveness being primarily attributable to the herd protection measures. The downgrading of the protection status is also not the least onerous means of reducing livestock kills. Increased efforts by the EU and the Member States to expand and improve herd protection measures and to provide more intensive support to grazers would be a less onerous measure. The negative effects of the downgrade would also be disproportionate to the intended objective of reducing livestock kills.










(*1)  For reasons of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality, some information contained in this issue cannot be disclosed anymore and therefore a new authentic version has been published.

(**)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  
            OJ L, 2025/1237, 24.6.2025.

(2)  
            OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.

(3)  
            https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RULES-10-2025-01-20-TOC_EN.html (version of the 10th parliamentary term, January 2025).

(4)  Council Decision of 1 December 2009 adopting the Council’s Rules of Procedure (2009/937/EU), OJ L 325, 11.12.2009, p. 35 (a consolidated version is available here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02009D0937-20240101).

(5)  Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Bern, 19 September 1979 (Council of Europe, official translation: Collection of European Treaties No 104: https://rm.coe.int/1680078aff).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6186/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)