The Last Say? Comment on cjeus Judgement in the Tapiola Case (C-674/17)

Abstract

This article is a comment to the judgement from October last year by the European Court of Justice’s in the Tapiola case (C-674/17). It can be seen as a follow-up to what I wrote about the Advocate General Henrik Øe’s opinion in the case, which was published in last issue of this journal (J. Darpö, Anything goes, jeepl 2019(3) 305–318). The case concerns a request for a preliminary ruling from the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court about the possibilities open under Article 16(1)(e) of the Habitats Directive (92/43) to perform license hunts on a strictly protected species listed under Annex iv to that Directive, namely the wolf (Canis lupus). This comment first describes the main points in the findings of the cjeu. Thereafter, a discussion follows focusing on three issues. The first concerns the relationship between Article 16(1)(e) of the Habitats Directive and the other derogation grounds in that provision from the strict protection of species. The next issue deals with the relationship between Annex iv and Annex V species, an issue linked to the assessment of the conservation status. The final question relates to how this conservation status is decided concerning species which roam over vast territories, not bothering about administrative restrictions such as national boarders or international obligations. At the end, I will make some concluding remarks about the wider implications of the judgement for the species protection under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive (2009/147).