Abstract
In a recent decision, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) sided with a small regional Finnish nature protection organization, Tapiola, interpreting EU law to require an end to wolf hunting in Finland. Much of the hunting of wolves and other large carnivores throughout the EU will also be impacted by this decision. Through this case, local stakeholders were able to utilize EU law to access national courts as well as the EU courts, to bring about national compliance with EU species protection law. This article analyzes the process of using law as a tool for environmental protection in the EU, and the challenges and opportunities therein. It also illuminates the different roles and outcomes for stakeholders in pursuing national compliance with EU law in direct actions and references for preliminary rulings.
Highlights
Law is an important means for protecting large carnivores and other wildlife (Trouwborst et al, 2017)
In an October 2019 decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) (CJEU) largely sided with a small Finnish nature protection organization, Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo – Kainuu ry (Tapiola), restrictively interpreting the Habitats Directive in a way that has led the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court to rule in March of 2020 that certain permits allowing wolf hunting in Finland had been illegally granted (Case C-674/17)
Tapiola’s arguments prevailed on several important points in the CJEU, and it won its appeals of the hunting permits that had been granted by the Finnish Wildlife Agency
Summary
Law is an important means for protecting large carnivores and other wildlife (Trouwborst et al, 2017). In 1997, Finland’s largest environmental NGO, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC), filed a complaint with the European Commission (March 11, 1997, on file with the authors) arguing that Finland had not taken adequate measures to implement the Habitats Directive, including a failure to protect wolves and other large carnivores. The Supreme Administrative Court would request a preliminary ruling on whether, and under what circumstances, hunting could be permitted based on purpose (e) of the Habitats Directive, whether hunting could be allowed because there was so satisfactory alternative way to prevent poaching, and how to interpret the requirement that exceptions to strict protection not be detrimental to the favorable conservation status of species’ populations.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
