1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(i), Article 2(3) and Article 14(1) of 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 The request has been made in proceedings between MTÜ Eesti Suurkiskjad and the Keskkonnaamet (Environmental Board, Estonia) concerning the legality of an administrative decision relating to wolf hunting quotas.
3 The fifteenth recital of the Habitats Directive states: ‘Whereas a general system of protection is required for certain species of flora and fauna …; whereas provision should be made for management measures for certain species, if their conservation status so warrants, including the prohibition of certain means of capture or killing, whilst providing for the possibility of derogations on certain conditions’.
4 Article 1 of that directive provides: ‘For the purpose of this Directive: … …’
5 Article 2 of that directive provides: ‘1. The aim of this Directive shall be to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies. 2. Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall be designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest. 3. Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics.’
6 Article 11 of that directive is worded as follows: ‘Member States shall undertake surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitats and species referred to in Article 2 with particular regard to priority natural habitat types and priority species.’
7 Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive provides: ‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:
8 Under Article 14(1) of that 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.’
9 Article 16(1) of that directive provides: ‘Provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, Member States may derogate from the provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15(a) and (b):
10 Annex II to that directive, entitled ‘Animal and plant species of Community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation’, refers, among those animal species, to ‘Canis lupus (except the Estonian population …)’.
11 In accordance with Annex IV to the Habitats Directive, entitled ‘Animal and plant species of Community interest in need of strict protection’, Canis lupus is one of those animal species, ‘except the Estonian population’.
12 Under Annex V to that directive, entitled ‘Animal and plant species of Community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures’, the Estonian populations of Canis lupus may be subject to such measures.
13 Paragraph 1 of the Looduskaitseseadus (Law on nature conservation, RT I 2004, 38, 258), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Law on nature conservation’), is worded as follows: ‘The purpose of this Law is to: (1) protect nature by preserving its diversity, by ensuring the favourable status of natural habitats and species of fauna, flora and fungi; …’
14 Paragraph 3 of the Law on nature conservation, entitled ‘Favourable status of a habitat and of a species’, provides, in subparagraph 2 thereof: ‘The status of a species shall be taken as favourable if the abundance of its population indicates that the species will be maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitat or reproduction habitat, if the natural range of the species is not being reduced, and if there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain the population of the species on a long-term basis.’
15 Paragraph 49 of that law, entitled ‘Action plan for the protection and management of the species’, provides: ‘(1) A joint action plan shall be drawn up: (2) The action plan must include: …’
16 Paragraph 21 of the Jahiseadus (Law on Hunting, RT I 2013, 2), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Law on Hunting’), entitled ‘Game monitoring’, provides, in subparagraph 4 thereof: ‘Each year, the authority referred to in subparagraph 3 of this paragraph [the Keskkonnaagentuur (Environment Agency, Estonia)] shall draw up a game monitoring report. The monitoring report must include the following data: (1) a description of the status of game populations; (2) changes in the status of game populations; (3) forecasts on the status of game populations and risk factors; (4) recommendations concerning the hunting quotas and the hunt structure.’
17 Paragraph 22 of the Law on Hunting, entitled ‘Hunting quotas and hunt structure’, provides, in subparagraph 2 thereof: ‘Each year, the Environmental Board shall set the quotas for the hunting of the brown bear, wolf, lynx and grey seal on the basis of the reports referred to in Paragraph 21(4) of this Law and the proposal made by the Hunting Council.’
18 On 4 October 2012, the Estonian Minister for the Environment adopted an ‘Action plan for the protection and management of large predators (Canis lupus (wolf), Lynx lynx (lynx) and Ursus arctos (brown bear)) for the period from 2012 to 2021’ (‘the action plan for the period from 2012 to 2021’).
19 The action plan for the period from 2012 to 2021 stated that the conservation status of the Estonian populations of large carnivores could be taken as favourable and sought, inter alia, to maintain the favourable conservation status of the wolf at the level of both that species’ Estonian population and Baltic population. To that end, that action plan set as its objective the maintenance, each year, prior to the start of the hunting season, of 15 to 25 wolf packs including pups, with the result that the total population of the species within the Estonian territory would comprise approximately 150 to 250 individuals. Within that range, annual objectives were to be set depending on the results of the monitoring, and the abundance of the population was to be maintained, within that range, by means of hunting. The objective was also to reduce the harm caused by the wolf, in particular by favouring hunting in areas where wolves were causing damage.
20 According to that action plan, the wolf’s Baltic population was in turn part of the Eurasian population of that animal species, whose natural range extended to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the north-east of Poland, Belarus, the north of Ukraine and certain Russian regions. That action plan indicated the approximate number, for 2008, of wolves present in Latvia and Lithuania and, for 2010, of wolves present in the Russian regions neighbouring Estonia. It stated also that, although wolf protection plans or conservation and management plans had been adopted by the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Finland and the Republic of Belarus and were being prepared in the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Poland, they were, by contrast, lacking in Russia. The action plan for the period from 2012 to 2021 also referred to the fact that wolf hunting was possible in those Member States and third countries. In the field of international cooperation, that action plan emphasised, inter alia, the participation of the Republic of Estonia in the International Union for Nature Conservation (‘IUCN’) working group and the existence of contacts between the Republic of Estonia’s representative and its Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian and Russian counterparts. That action plan provided also for the establishment of regular exchange of information between the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Latvia on the quantitative trends in the large carnivores population and the hunting quotas as well as for the active participation of the Republic of Estonia in international projects related to the organisation of the conservation and management of large carnivores.
21 By an order of 29 October 2020, adopted pursuant to Paragraph 22(2) of the Law on Hunting, the Environmental Board set the first tranche of the wolf hunting quota for the 2020 to 2021 hunting season in Estonia at 140 specimens, spread over 20 management areas, favouring breeding areas and those in which that animal species was causing damage.
22 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, brought an action before the Tallinna Halduskohus (Administrative Court, Tallinn, Estonia) seeking the annulment of that order. In support of that action, it claimed, inter alia, that, in Estonia, the conservation status of the wolf could not be taken as ‘favourable’ within the meaning of Paragraph 3 of the Law on nature conservation and that authorising the hunting of 140 wolves would make it even more difficult to achieve the objective of maintaining or restoring that species at a favourable conservation status.
23 By a judgment of 1 October 2021, the Tallinna Halduskohus (Administrative Court, Tallinn) dismissed that action.
24 That judgment dismissing the action was upheld by the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Court of Appeal, Tallinn, Estonia).
25 The Riigikohus (Supreme Court, Estonia), which is the referring court, is hearing an appeal on a point of law brought by the applicant in the main proceedings against that judgment of the appeal court.
26 The referring court is uncertain, first, whether, where a Member State adopts management measures under Article 14 of the Habitats Directive, it is necessary, in order to ascertain whether those measures are compatible with the objective of maintaining or restoring that species at a ‘favourable conservation status’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(i) of that directive, to take into consideration the conservation status of the population of that species present within the territory of the Member State concerned, or whether account may be taken of the conservation status of the population located within the territory of other Member States of the European Union, in the present case, the Baltic population.
27 The referring court states, in that regard, that, while the ‘favourable’ conservation status of the Baltic wolf population is not disputed, the applicant in the main proceedings, relying on an IUCN assessment, submits that the Estonian wolf population cannot be regarded as having such a conservation status.
28 In that context, the referring court observes, second, that, to its knowledge, with a view to the conservation of the wolf population at issue, there is no official cooperation between the Member States to whose territory the natural range of that population extends, but rather only informal communication between scientists.
29 Third, the referring court raises the question, in the light, inter alia, of the judgments of 14 June 2007, Commission v Finland (C‑342/05, EU:C:2007:341), and of 23 April 2020, Commission v Finland (Spring hunting of male common eiders) (C‑217/19, EU:C:2020:291), whether a population of a species classified, in respect of a Member State, in the ‘vulnerable’ category of the IUCN Red List of endangered species (‘the IUCN Red List’) may be regarded as having a ‘favourable conservation status’ within the meaning of the Habitats Directive. It notes, in that regard, that, in the action plan drawn up for the period from 2022 to 2031, subsequent to the action plan for the period from 2012 to 2021, the Baltic wolf population is regarded as coming within the ‘least concern’ (LC) category of the IUCN Red List, whereas the Estonian population of that species is classified as ‘vulnerable’ (VU), and would even have be regarded as ‘endangered’ (EN) if neighbouring populations were not taken into account.
30 Lastly, fourth, the referring court states that, in the dispute in the main proceedings, the Environmental Board and the Environment Agency have always argued that an increase in the number of wolves would lead to strong social and economic tensions. One of the main arguments relied on as a reason for authorising wolf hunting is the need to reduce the damage caused by that animal species, especially to livestock.
31 In those circumstances, the Riigikohus (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
32 By its first three questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive 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 is uncertain, in essence, whether Article 1(i) must be interpreted as meaning that the adoption, by a Member State, of management measures under Article 14(1) of that directive 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.
33 As a preliminary point, it must be recalled that, in principle, the wolf, under Article 12 of the Habitats Directive, read in conjunction with Annex IV(a) thereto, is one of the species ‘of Community interest’ for which ‘strict protection’ must be ensured, within the meaning of Article 12.
34 However, Annex IV(a) excludes from that strict protection, inter alia, the Estonian wolf populations.
35 Accordingly, those populations are listed in Annex V(a) to the Habitats Directive as an animal species of Community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures and which therefore come within the scope of Article 14 of that directive.
36 As regards the management measures to which the species included in Annex V to the Habitats Directive may be subject, it must be noted that, in accordance with Article 14(1) of that 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’.
37 It is apparent from the very wording of that provision that Member States have some discretion in determining whether it is necessary to adopt measures pursuant to that provision, such as to limit the exploitation of species included in Annex V to the Habitats Directive (judgment of 29 July 2024, ASCEL, C‑436/22, EU:C:2024:656, paragraph 53).
38 However, that discretion 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 (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2024, ASCEL, C‑436/22, EU:C:2024:656, paragraph 55).
39 Indeed, it should be recalled that any measure taken by a Member State on the basis of the Habitats Directive must have the objective, in accordance with Article 2(2) thereof, of maintaining at or restoring to favourable conservation status animal species of Community interest (judgment of 29 July 2024, ASCEL, C‑436/22, EU:C:2024:656, paragraph 56).
40 Furthermore, as is apparent from the fifteenth recital of the Habitats Directive, the EU legislature considered that a general system of protection is required for certain species of flora and fauna and that provision has to be made for management measures for certain species, ‘if their conservation status so warrants’, including the prohibition of certain means of capture or killing, whilst providing for the possibility of derogations on certain conditions. In that way, as is shown by the phrase ‘if their conservation status so warrants’, the adoption of such measures must be justified by the need to maintain or restore the species concerned at a favourable conservation status (judgment of 29 July 2024, ASCEL, C‑436/22, EU:C:2024:656, paragraph 57).
41 Furthermore, where an animal species has an unfavourable conservation status, the competent authorities must take measures within the meaning of Article 14 of the Habitats Directive 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 (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2024, ASCEL, C‑436/22, EU:C:2024:656, paragraph 69).
42 Lastly, the assessment of the conservation status of a species and of the appropriateness of adopting measures based on Article 14 of the Habitats Directive must be carried out taking into account, inter alia, the most recent scientific data obtained through the surveillance provided for in Article 11 of that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2024, ASCEL, C‑436/22, EU:C:2024:656, paragraph 65). In that regard, in accordance with the precautionary principle enshrined in Article 191(2) TFEU, if, after examining the best scientific data available, there remains uncertainty as to whether the exploitation of a species of Community interest is compatible with the maintenance of that species at a favourable conservation status, the Member State concerned must refrain from authorising such exploitation (judgment of 29 July 2024, ASCEL, C‑436/22, EU:C:2024:656, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited).
43 In the present case, it follows from the request for a preliminary ruling and from the file before the Court that, in the action plan for the period from 2012 to 2021, the conservation status of the wolf in Estonia was taken as favourable. In that context, account was taken, inter alia, of factors relating to the neighbouring Member States and third countries, referred to in paragraph 20 above.
44 However, the referring court notes, in particular, that, in the subsequent action plan, drawn up for the period from 2022 to 2031, the Estonian wolf population is classified in the ‘vulnerable’ category of the IUCN Red List, that is to say, as ‘facing a high risk of extinction in the wild’, in line with the definition set out in the Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria.
45 In that regard, it should be recalled that the concept of ‘conservation status of a species’ is defined in the first subparagraph of Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive as being the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within the territory referred to in Article 2 of that directive.
46 Furthermore, it must be noted that, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 1(i) of that directive, a conservation status will be taken as favourable provided that three cumulative conditions are satisfied. First, population dynamics data on the species concerned must indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats. Second, the natural range of that species must be neither being reduced nor be likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future. Third, it is necessary that there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis (judgment of 29 July 2024, ASCEL, C‑436/22, EU:C:2024:656, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited).
47 It is apparent from the Court’s case-law on Article 16 of the Habitats Directive, which authorises Member States to derogate from the provisions of Articles 12 to 15 of that directive and the application of which also depends, inter alia, on the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, that that status must exist and be assessed, in the first place and necessarily, at local and national level, so that an unfavourable conservation status in the territory of a Member State or a part thereof is not hidden by the effect of an assessment carried out solely at a cross-border level which would show that that species is at a favourable conservation status (judgment of 11 July 2024, WWF Österreich and Others, C‑601/22, EU:C:2024:595, paragraph 57).
48 The same necessarily applies when implementing Article 14 of the Habitats Directive. As the Advocate General observed in points 39 and 40 of her Opinion, 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.
49 That said, as regards, in the first place, the fact that the Estonian wolf population is classified in the ‘vulnerable’ category of the IUCN Red List, it must be stated that, as the Advocate General observed in point 85 of her Opinion, for the purpose of defining the concept of ‘conservation status of a species’, neither Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive nor any other provision of that directive refers to the IUCN Red List or to the criteria according to which that list is drawn up as an indicator of the favourable or unfavourable conservation status of a species.
50 Furthermore, as the European Commission stated in its written observations, the assessment method used for the purpose of classifying species on the IUCN Red List differs from that which must be implemented under Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive.
51 Accordingly, although, as the Advocate General emphasised, in essence, in point 86 of her Opinion, the data, criteria and assessments leading to the classification of a species on the IUCN Red List are likely to form part of the scientific data which the Member State concerned must take into consideration for the purposes of its own assessment (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 June 2007, Commission v Finland, C‑342/05, EU:C:2007:341, paragraphs 26 and 27; of 23 April 2020, Commission v Finland (Spring hunting of male common eiders), C‑217/19, EU:C:2020:291, paragraphs 77 to 88; and of 29 July 2024, ASCEL, C‑436/22, EU:C:2024:656, paragraphs 65 and 78), the classification of a species on the IUCN Red List, and more specifically in that list’s ‘vulnerable’ category at national level, does not, as such, preclude the conservation status of that species, within the territory of the Member State concerned, from still being taken as favourable if the cumulative conditions laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive are satisfied.
52 As regards, in the second place, those cumulative conditions, it should be noted that, in order to determine whether the conservation status of a species is favourable within the territory of a Member State, data relating to the populations of that species in other Member States, or in third countries, may be relevant. That will be the case in particular as regards protected animal species which range over wide areas, such as wolves, and whose ‘natural range’, which is one of the criteria to be taken into consideration in determining whether the conservation status of a species is favourable, is therefore broader than the geographical area that presents the physical or biological factors essential to their life and reproduction (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2024, ASCEL, C‑436/22, EU:C:2024:656, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).
53 As the Advocate General observed, in essence, in points 48 to 52 of her Opinion, in particular in the case of an animal species such as the wolf, the populations of that species that are present also in the 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, provided that there are exchanges between those populations, since such exchanges 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, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(i) of that directive.
54 Such exchanges are, in particular, likely to compensate for the loss of specimens of a species by immigration or, by contrast, to mitigate, by emigration, the excessive growth of the population of that species in the Member State concerned. Moreover, those exchanges are likely to increase the genetic variation of that population.
55 Furthermore, as the Advocate General also observed, in essence, in point 53 of her Opinion, the exchanges between the populations of the Member States or third countries forming part of the same population, in the present case the Baltic wolf population, or the Eurasian wolf population, may even be an essential prerequisite for its conservation, in particular as regards the populations present in relatively small Member States, meaning that the natural habitat that the species may find there is too small for a viable population. In such a case, the species concerned can ensure its survival in such a Member State only if its population, which would not be viable if it were to remain isolated, maintains continuous exchanges with populations of the same species present in neighbouring Member States or third countries. Taking those exchanges into account can then make it possible to establish that the three cumulative conditions for a conservation status to be taken as favourable, as laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive, are satisfied as regards that population.
56 That said, it must be pointed out that, as follows from the wording of that provision, recalled in paragraph 46 above, in order for the conservation status of a species to be taken as favourable, it is not sufficient that population dynamics data on the species in question indicate that that species is maintaining itself as a viable component of its natural habitats, that the natural range of that species is not being reduced, and that there is a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis. It is also necessary that, first, population dynamics data on the species in question indicate that that species is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats; second, the natural range of that species is not likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future; and third, there will probably continue to be a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis.
57 Consequently, as the Advocate General observed, in essence, in point 59 of her Opinion, in cases where a situation is satisfactory at the present moment, in the light of those criteria, it must still be ensured that that situation is sustainable in order to find that the conservation status of a species is favourable.
58 In that regard, 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.
59 The ongoing construction of border fences between, on the one hand, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania, and, on the other, the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation, noted by the referring court, constitutes such a change. Those fences are liable to affect the exchanges between, on the one hand, the populations of the species concerned present in those Member States and, on the other, the populations of that species present in Belarus and Russia.
60 Second, account should be taken of the level of legal protection enjoyed by the species concerned in the neighbouring Member States and third countries.
61 It can in principle be assumed that exchanges identified between the population of the species concerned present in one Member State and the populations of that species in other Member States will persist, since those other Member States are, like the first Member State, subject to the requirements of the Habitats Directive.
62 By contrast, as the Advocate General observed, in essence, in points 63 and 64 of her Opinion, in the absence, in a third country, of protection comparable to that provided by the Habitats Directive or, at the very least, by the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, signed in Bern on 19 September 1979 (OJ 1982 L 38, p. 3), there is no legal guarantee against future deterioration of populations present in that third country and, accordingly, of exchanges with the population of the Member State concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 July 2024, WWF Österreich and Others, C‑601/22, EU:C:2024:595, paragraphs 62 and 63 and the case-law cited).
63 Third, and lastly, as the Advocate General observed in point 67 of her Opinion, even greater weight must be attached to the relationships with the populations of neighbouring Member States and third countries where those Member States and third countries not only apply comparable legal protection rules, but cooperate, with the Member State concerned, with a view to protecting the species concerned, and coordinate with that Member State, for example, their protective measures in such a way as to optimise the exchanges between the populations concerned.
64 Furthermore, in order to ensure, as recalled in paragraph 38 above, 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 the exchanges between the wolf population present within that territory and those present in neighbouring Member States or third countries, to share information with those Member States and third countries 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 sharing 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 may 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 it is planning to take in respect of that species will be compatible with the species’ being maintained at a favourable conservation status within its territory.
65 It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the light of the factors referred to in paragraphs 45 to 64 above, the conservation status of the wolf in Estonia could be taken as favourable as at the time of the adoption of the action plan for the period from 2012 to 2021, and, as the case may be, whether the management measures adopted by way of the order at issue in the main proceedings, referred to in paragraph 21 above, were compatible with the wolf’s being maintained at that status.
66 Having regard to all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first to third questions is that Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive 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 does not preclude the conservation status of that species, within the territory of that Member State, from being taken as ‘favourable’ within the meaning of that provision; - the favourable conservation status of that species must exist and be assessed, in the first place and necessarily, at local and national level. However, in the context of the assessment, with a view to the adoption of management measures under Article 14(1) of that directive, of whether the conservation status of an animal species that is part of a population whose natural range extends beyond the territory of that Member State is ‘favourable’ within the meaning of Article 1(i), that Member State may take into consideration the exchanges between, on the one hand, the population of the species concerned present within its territory and, on the other, the populations of that species present in the neighbouring Member States or third countries. For the purpose of assessing the relevance to be attached to such exchanges, the Member State concerned must take into account, in particular, any foreseeable and probable change capable of affecting those exchanges, the level of legal protection guaranteed by those other Member States and third countries, and the extent to which the respective competent authorities are cooperating.
67 By its fourth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive, read in conjunction with Article 2(3) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the assessment of the conservation status of an animal species with a view to the adoption, under Article 14 of that directive, of management measures, account may be taken of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics, within the meaning of Article 2(3) of that directive.
68 As the Advocate General observed in points 73 to 79 of her Opinion, economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics which distinguish the situation of a Member State may be relevant for the purpose of establishing whether or not the conservation status of a species present in its territory is favourable within the meaning of Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive. Such requirements and characteristics are capable of forming part of the influences acting on the species that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within the territory referred to in Article 2(1) of that directive.
69 Nevertheless, as the Advocate General also emphasised, in essence, in points 80 to 82 of her Opinion, where not all three cumulative conditions laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive are satisfied, the conservation status of the species concerned cannot, in any event, be taken as favourable. If Member States were permitted to consider that, although those conditions are not satisfied, the conservation status of the species concerned must nevertheless be taken as favourable because of the requirements or characteristics to which Article 2(3) of that directive refers, the achievement of the objective of conservation of the species referred to in Article 2(2) of that directive would be jeopardised (see, by analogy, judgments of 7 November 2000, First Corporate Shipping, C‑371/98, EU:C:2000:600, paragraph 23, and of 14 January 2010, Stadt Papenburg, C‑226/08, EU:C:2010:10, paragraph 31).
70 For the same reason, 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 (judgment of 14 January 2010, Stadt Papenburg, C‑226/08, EU:C:2010:10, paragraph 32), 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, as noted in paragraph 38 above, 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.
71 Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to the fourth question is that Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive, read in conjunction with Article 2(3) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the assessment of the conservation status of an animal species with a view to the adoption, under Article 14 of that directive, of management measures, account may be taken of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics, within the meaning of Article 2(3) of that directive, since those requirements and characteristics are influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within the territory referred to in Article 2(1) of that directive. Nevertheless, the conservation status of that species cannot be taken as favourable owing to those requirements and characteristics if the three cumulative conditions laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 1(i) are not satisfied.
72 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.