Wolf hunting ban is in effect! Austrian federal states must change their wolf shooting regulations as well as their alpine and pasture protection laws.
Vösendorf (OTS) – Today the European Court of Justice (ECJ) made a landmark ruling in case C-601/22 (Vienna Animal Welfare Association (brand name Tierschutz Austria) and other environmental organizations against the Tyrolean state government). The decision was made in response to a request for a preliminary ruling from the Tyrol Regional Administrative Court and has considerable significance for the interpretation of the Habitats Directive in dealing with wolves. The key points of the decision must now be adhered to by national courts and authorities in all EU member states.
“In Austria, nature conservation is the responsibility of the states in terms of legislation and enforcement. Following the ECJ ruling, the Austrian federal states must now immediately change their wolf shooting regulations and alpine and pasture protection laws, as these violate the FFH Directive and otherwise there is a risk of infringement proceedings with possible high fines
,” said Tierschutz Austria President Madeleine Petrovic about the legal success.
Thoren Metz, chairman of the NGO Protect, adds: “The ECJ examined the position of the Republic of Austria and the Tyrolean state government based on the wolf populations in other EU states, all of which have a good to high wolf density under comparable geographical and topographical conditions and in which, at the same time, sheep farming in alpine areas was economically successful solely with shepherding and livestock guard dogs such as in Romania, Slovenia and Italy.
“
Four groundbreaking decision points of the ECJ interpret the FFH Directive in more detail for the protection of species, habitats and therefore nature conservation in the future:
1) Disadvantage compared to other countries
2) Definition of the conservation status in the Alpine region
3) Definition of serious economic harm
4) Definition of other, more lenient solutions instead of shooting them down.
No special regulations for Austria! The exemption of certain Member States from Annex IV of the Habitats Directive does not in itself constitute unequal treatment of any individual Member State to which such a derogation has not been granted.
Madeleine Petrovic said: “It is shameful that an EU member state like Austria constantly grants exceptions to strict protection and therefore makes the exception the rule. Each Member State must strive for and maintain good conservation status in its country for each species referred to in the Directive.”
“The conservation status of the wolf in Austria is currently far from favorable. In the Austrian government’s current Article 17 report, it is officially listed as a “newly arriving species”. If you look at the current data from the federal states, this will probably also be the case Not much will change in the next Type 17 report 2025/26. According to this data from the federal states, evaluated in collaboration with the Research Institute for Wildlife and Ecology, 104 wolves were detected in Austria last year. Most of the wolves are migrants Map as of July 4, 2024 Wolf – Distribution Austria – Austria Center (baer-wolf-luchs.at) shows that of the 6 packs from last year only one could be detected in this year. However, the favorable conservation status explicitly requires successful reproduction with several “According to the EU Commission, Austria’s wolves should number more than 1,000 individuals in order to be able to speak of a favorable conservation status,” explains Thoren Metz.
The ECJ further states in its judgment that the good conservation status of the population clearly refers to the local and national area. The good conservation status of a species cannot be determined by the existence of a good conservation status in a neighboring Member State. Even in a member state with a good conservation status for a species, shooting may be prohibited if it has a negative impact on the population in the neighboring state.
The ECJ also makes it clear that alleged losses in alpine farming are not to be classified as “serious damage”. “Serious damage” within the meaning of Article 16 Paragraph 1 lit.b of the Habitats Directive does not include indirect, (future) economic damage that cannot be attributed to an individual wolf. M.a. In other words, serious damage must be material damage that has already occurred and can be attributed to an individual wolf. The thesis that a wolf can cause indirect (future) economic damage and therefore justify shooting is also clearly rejected.
The argument that herd protection as a “lighter means” is too expensive in Austria and is therefore unreasonable is rejected, especially in a country as rich as Austria. The costs for herd protection measures are therefore economically reasonable, especially since such costs could be 100% financed by the EU. It is up to the individual states to adapt their funding systems such as ÖPUL at the federal and state levels.
With regard to the pasture protection laws that have now been passed in numerous federal states such as Salzburg, Carinthia and Tyrol, the ECJ ruled very clearly that each alpine pasture or pasture must always be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine which herd protection measures can be implemented as a more lenient means. This clearly rejects a general and predetermined classification that alpine pastures cannot be protected.
Finally, Madeleine Petrovic and Thoren Metz agree: “The federal states are now called upon to immediately revoke the clearly illegal pasture protection laws and ordinances as well as to immediately stop the unlawful circumvention of the Aarhus Convention through ordinances and to immediately stop shootings – where these are even permitted – to arrange for proper notifications again, because this is the only way to ensure an INDIVIDUAL CASE EXAMINATION.
All federal states are now also requested to immediately implement the FFH directive in full 1:1. Austria should be a role model in the implementation of the common EU policy and the laws passed by the EU Parliament and not the country that repeatedly breaks them, only to be condemned by the ECJ or dragged into infringement proceedings that are expensive for the taxpayer to become. The states and the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Regional Affairs must now finally comprehensively finance herd protection measures.”
Questions & Contact:
Michaela Lehner
Head of Legal Department
Animal Protection Austria
michaela.lehner@tierschutz-austria.at