Otherwise, Austria might face infringement proceedings, says Franz Leidenmühler, head of the Institute for European Law at JKU Linz, in an interview with APA. European law expert Walter Obwexer made similar comments in the “Tiroler Tageszeitung”.
The ECJ ruled on Thursday that wolves may no longer be hunted in Austria as long as the wolf population in this country is not in a favorable conservation status. Animal welfare organizations had filed a complaint following the Tyrolean state government issued an order authorizing the shooting of a wolf in 2022. The Tyrolean State Administrative Court (LVwG) then asked the ECJ to interpret EU law (especially the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive) on this issue.
The Tyrolean state government was initially calm and pointed out that wolves in the state are no longer shot by decree but by regulations. But that doesn’t matter, says lawyer Leidenmühler: The ECJ says how the Flora-Fauna Habitat Directive is to be understood. “And it is to be understood in such a way that shooting – regardless of whether it is based on a regulation, a decree or a law – is only permissible if the conservation status is favorable and if it is the mildest means.”
Further wolf removals might lead to infringement proceedings
As long as the wolf’s conservation status is not favourable in Austria, the country might face infringement proceedings by the EU Commission if further wolf removals are carried out. “I assume that the regulations for the removal of problem wolves in Tyrol cannot be maintained as they are,” Obwexer was quoted as saying by the “Tiroler Tageszeitung” (online edition). Tyrol had expected that the good conservation status might be watered down to the Alpine arc in general. “But it is even being broken down to Tyrol, where the conservation status is poor,” said Obwexer. The fact that the conservation status must be favourable at both local and national level for hunting to take place and that, if these factors are present, such a status must be examined across borders amounts to a de facto ban on hunting.
By emphasising that the population status in each Member State is important, the ECJ wants to prevent the various states from “making excuses for each other”, explains Leidenmühler. If the conservation status of the wolf in this country is considered to be favourable at some point in the future, however, things would look different. But even then there are still hurdles. According to the ECJ ruling, it cannot simply be pointed out that alternatives, such as pasture protection measures, are more expensive than shooting. Leidenmühler refers here to the conclusions of the EU Advocate General, which state: “Certain costs to enable the return of the wolf must therefore be accepted as inextricably linked to the objectives of the Habitats Directive. They are part of what the Austrian government described in the oral hearing as the process of relearning how to live with the wolf.”
