Who Answers the Cry of Wolf? The CJEU’s role in the Politics of Conservation

Introduction 

“Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don’t cry wolf when there is NO wolf”

The recovery of Canis Lupus across Europe represents a remarkable conservation success, especially considering that the continent’s landscapes are extensively influenced by human activity and high population density. Despite this success, the tale is far from its happy-ending. 

The wolf has been the subject of considerable political consternation over the past several years. The recent controversial downlisting of the wolf’s protection status has significantly modified the complex political and legal framework and the discourse surrounding wolf conservation in the EU. Since 2024, a wave of wolf-related cases has recently reached the CJEU. Much like the villagers responding to the boy who cried wolf, the question arises: how often can the Court come to the rescue? 

This note examines how the Court has metaphorically taken on the role of the villager, stepping in when it hears the cry ‘wolf’. It asks how effective the Court’s intervention has been in ensuring adequate environmental protection in the face of political opportunism. The role of courts in environmental cases is often contested, particularly given their scientific and technical complexity. The Court’s judgement in MTU Eesti Suukiskjad v Keskkonnaamet (Eesti) illustrates how the Court has played an important role in maintaining meaningful protection for species. At the same time, the note reflects on the limits of this judicial role.

Legal Problem

The primary objective of the Habitats Directive is to contribute to the preservation of biodiversity by safeguarding natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. For species designated as being of ‘community interest’, like the wolf, the Directive requires the adoption of measures aimed at maintaining or restoring these species to a ‘favourable conservation status’ (FCS). 

The conservation status of a species is defined as the combined effect of all factors influencing the species that might affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within Member State territories. This status is considered favourable when three cumulative conditions are satisfied: namely, that population dynamics indicate the species is sustaining itself as a viable component of its natural habitat over the long-term; that its natural range is neither declining nor likely to in the foreseeable future; and that sufficient habitat exists, and is likely to continue to exist over the long-term.

The Directive establishes a two-tier system of species protection. Species requiring strict protection are listed in Annex IV; those under more flexible management measures are included in Annex V. Under Annex IV, killing is only permitted in three circumstances: for certain listed purposes; when alternatives to killing are demonstrably absent; and when the action does not affect FCS. By contrast, under Annex V, only the third criterion applies. Nonetheless, Member States retain a duty to ensure that populations are maintained at, or restored to, FCS. Therefore, as García-Ureta observes, the objective of achieving or maintaining FCS ‘underpins the entire normative framework of the Directive, including Article 14’. The consequent necessary compendious understanding of FCS is not foreseen in the Directive. The Court’s jurisprudence has thus played a key role in delineating this normative benchmark.

Case Summary 

The dispute concerned Estonia’s 2012-2021 action plan for large predators, which deemed both the national and Baltic wolf populations’ conservation status as favourable. A subsequent order setting the hunting quota was challenged by an ENGO, arguing that Estonia’s wolf population was not at FCS and that authorising the hunt would undermine efforts to maintain or restore it. 

Notably, the wolf in Estonia was already subject only to the less protective regime of Article 14. The Eesti judgement is significant because it elucidates how the wolf’s protection can be ensured under this new management regime.

The Estonian Supreme Court asked the CJEU four valuable questions: 

1. Whether Article 14(1) of the Directive requires favourable conservation status at a national/regional level or allows assessment at the EU-wide population level; 
2. If EU-wide assessment is allowed, whether Member States must cooperate formally or may act unilaterally; 
3. Whether a species classified as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List can still have favourable conservation status under the Directive; and 
4. Whether economic, social, cultural and regional factors may be considered in that assessment. 

Firstly, the Court noted that the Directive does not refer to the IUCN criteria and agreed with the Commission that the two assessment methods differ. While the Advocate General took a more nuanced view, considering that Red List assessment and data will likely form part of the scientific data which a Member State must consider for the purposes of its own assessment, the Court held firmly that a ‘vulnerable’ classification under the Red List does not preclude FCS if the Article 1(i) conditions are met. 

The Court then addressed whether in assessing FCS, account may be taken of populations in neighbouring Member States or third countries. It held that such data may indeed be relevant for applying the cumulative conditions of FCS. In particular, the concept of a species’ “natural range” must be considered; for wide-ranging species this extends beyond the specific geographic areas containing the physical or biological conditions necessary for their life and reproduction. 

Therefore, exchanges between populations in other Member States may influence the species’ long-term distribution and abundance and can even be a prerequisite for conservation, particularly in smaller states like Estonia where the natural habitat may be too small for an independently viable population. 

The Court further emphasised that FCS cannot be based solely on the current situation but must be sustainable over time. This requires taking into account any foreseeable changes that could affect exchanges between populations within the Member State and those forming part of the same wider population. In this regard, both physical and political factors are relevant, such as the construction of border fences between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and Belarus and Russia. 

Additionally, the level of legal protection in neighbouring countries must be considered. The Court noted that exchanges between Member States can generally be presumed to continue, since all are bound by the Habitats Directive. By contrast, where third countries do not provide comparable protection, there is no guarantee against deterioration of their populations and no assurance of continued exchanges with the Member State concerned. Turning to formal cooperation, the Court stated that greater weight should be given to relations with populations in neighbouring countries where, in addition to having comparable legal protection, they collaborate and coordinate with the Member State concerned. 

Notwithstanding, the Court concluded that FCS must, first and foremost, be established at the local and national level to ensure its ecological function. FCS presupposes that a species can fulfil its ecological function to ‘its full extent’. While the Court did not elaborate on what exactly ‘to its full extent’ means, it does appear to mandate a holistic assessment. This approach is consistent with the principles articulated in Österreich, in which the Court made clear that an unfavourable national status cannot be remedied through a favourable status at the cross-border level.

Finally, the Court addressed whether economic, social and cultural needs, as well as regional and local characteristics, within the meaning Article 2(3) of the Directive, may be considered for the purposes of Article 14. It concluded that such factors may be relevant when assessing whether a species’ conservation status is favourable, as they can influence the long-term distribution and abundance of populations, but it is impossible to regard status as favourable unless the cumulative conditions are satisfied. Allowing a Member State to rely on Article 2(3) considerations to determine FCS despite those conditions not being met would undermine the Directive’s objective.

Analysis 

Welcomed by conservationists and hunters alike, the judgement can best be characterised as pragmatic and functional. The Court clarifies that FCS is not a symbolic benchmark but must reflect the goal of ‘flourishing nature’, enabling each species to fulfil its ecological role. Its emphasis on ecological functionality aligns with international biodiversity law and policy. By requiring that FCS be assessed at both national and regional levels, the Court prevents Member States from externalising responsibility onto neighbouring countries. At the same time, its reasoning remains grounded in practical realities, acknowledging the importance of population exchanges and the social complexities surrounding large carnivores. Crucially, it maintains the clear threshold: a species cannot be considered to have reached FCS unless the ecological conditions are ensured. 

In a broader jurisprudential context, Eesti builds on the recent Austrian and Spanish judgments. Collectively, they reinforce the need for robust ecological standards and distil clearer guidance on interpreting and applying FCS. 

Whilst it is evident that the Court plays a central role in upholding high levels of environmental protection, that role is not without limits. Member State behaviour presents a particular challenge, strikingly illustrated in the example of the Swedish wolf. Following the first extensive hunt in 2010, Swedish ENGOs filed a complaint, prompting the Commission to begin an infringement procedure against Sweden in January 2011. The case produced two reasoned opinions, the last in 2015. Yet Sweden has largely ignored the Habitats Directive’s requirements and has continued to hunt its wolves. Despite Sweden’s brazen non-cooperation, the Commission refrained from referring the case to the CJEU. The effectiveness of the Court’s reasoning ultimately depends on the willingness of Member States to implement it rigorously. Moreover, where a case is not brought before the Court, its capacity to uphold environmental law is essentially abolished. 

Political decision-making presents a different kind of challenge. In 2025, the Commission announced the downgrading of the wolf’s protected status. Several concerns have been raised regarding the legitimacy of this contentious proposal. The Habitats Directive provides a specific procedure for amending its Annexes, guaranteeing unanimity for Annex IV decisions.  Perplexingly, however, the Commission based its proposal on Article 192(1) TFEU, requiring only a qualified majority.  The scientific evidence for the proposal is also dubitable. As recently as 2022, the EU opposed attempts to downlist wolves under the Bern Convention, citing insufficient scientific justification and relying on population estimates of 19,400 individuals. The Commission’s subsequent report, however, placed the population only marginally higher, at around 20,300. These concerns have prompted the Ombudsperson to open an inquiry into the Commission’s data collection methods, which has now been stayed as this issue is now the subject of pending litigation before the Court. This illustrates how apocryphal political choices can still significantly affect conservation outcomes.

Conclusion

When addressing the case of the wolf, it is essential to recognise the range of competing considerations involved. The impact of wolves on livestock, along with possible human conflict, clearly demands attention. However, this must be weighed against the importance of conservation, including the species’ intrinsic value and role within the ecosystem. In this context, the CJEU has played a significant role. The Court has clarified that FCS is not a malleable concept, but a demanding and stringent standard. The Court has struck a careful balance between environmental protection and practical governance. Nevertheless, the nature of the Court’s role is inherently reactive. It can respond when it hears the cry of ‘wolf’, but it cannot control how often that cry is raised, nor can it ensure that its warnings are heeded. Its effectiveness depends on cases being brought before it and, crucially, on Member States’ willingness to comply. Ultimately, the Court cannot replace political responsibility. If the cry of ‘wolf’ is to retain its urgency, it must be matched by thoughtful and protective lawmaking.

Legislation & Acts

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21^st May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora [1992] OJ L206/7. 

Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (19 September 1979, entered into force 1 June 1982) CETS No 104 (Bern Convention).

Council Decision (EU) 2022/2489 of 25^th November 2022 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union at the 42^nd meeting of the Standing Committee of the Convention on the conservation of wildlife and natural habitats [2022] OJ L 323. 

Commission, ‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as regards the protection status of the wolf’ COM(2025) 106 Final. 

Commission, Notice on multiple complaint CPLT (2023) 01635 [Date: 23^rd October 2025]. 

Cases

C-601/22 Umweltverband WWF Österreich and others v Tiroler Landesregierung EU:C:2024:595

C-436/22 Asociación para la Conservacíon y Estudio del Lobo Ibérico (ASCEL) v Administración de la Comunidad de Castilla y León EU:C:2024:656

C-629/23 MTÜ Eesti Suurkiskjad v Keskkonnaamet EU:C:2025:429. 

T-634/24 Green Impact and Others v Council and Commission 

European Ombudsman, How the European Commission carried out a targeted data collection on the impact of the wolf population in the European Union (2024) 1758/2024/FA.

Bibliography

Books

Aesop, The Boy Who Cried Wolf (Read. Gov), available at: https://read.gov/aesop/001.html, (date accessed: 15^th March 2026.) 

García-Ureta, A. EU Biodiversity Law: Wild Birds and Habitats Directives, 2^nd ed. (Europa Law Publishing, 2025)

Articles

Dahlerus, A. et al. “The European Commission is failing to enforce EU law and protect Swedish wolves” The Brussels Times (19^th June 2025).

Darpö, J. Brussels Advocates Swedish Grey Wolves: on the encounter between species protection according to Union law and the Swedish wolf policy” (2011) 8 European Policy Analysis 1. 

Darpö, J, Epstein Y. “Thrown to the wolves – Sweden once again flouts EU standards on species protection and access to justice” [2015] Nordic Environmental Law Journal 7. 

Di Bernardi, C. et al. “Continuing Recovery of Wolves in Europe” (2025) 4(2) Sustain Transform 1. 

Trouwborst, A. “Favourable conservation status: EU Court clarifies crucial yardstick for wildlife preservation and restoration in wave of wolf cases” [2026] RECIEL 1. 

Trouwborst, A. “Trapping and re-educating bold wolves in the European Union: Obligatory and illegal at the same time?” (2025) 34(1) RECIEL 76.

Blogs

Fleurke, F. Op-Ed: “Upholding Ecological Standards: The EU’s Wolf Favourable Conservation Status Imperative (C-629/23 Eesti Suurkiskjad)” (2025) EU Law Live Blog, available at: https://eulawlive.com/op-ed-upholding-ecological-standards-the-eus-wolf-favourable-conservation-status-imperative-case-c-629-23-eesti-suurkiskjad/, (date accessed: 7^th March 2026). 

Fleurke F, Trouwborst, A. “On an Anti-Wolf Mission, Commission ignores science and law”, (2025) European Law Blog, available at https://www.europeanlawblog.eu/pub/7w4ku9b6/release/1, (date accessed: 7^th March 2026).

EU Law Live, “Court of Justice: Wildlife conservation statuses must be based on national populations, prioritising scientific evidence over IUCN listings and socioeconomic considerations” (2025), EU Law Live, available at https://eulawlive.com/court-of-justice-habitats-directive-conservation-status-assessments-are-national-affairs-with-scientific-evidence-supreme-over-iucn-listings-and-socioeconomic-considerations/, (date accessed: 7^th March 2026). 

Hunters of Europe, FACE, “The Estonian Wolf Case – What’s new?” (13^th June 2025), available at: https://www.face.eu/2025/06/the-estonian-wolf-case-whats-new/ (date accessed: 20^th March 2026).

Reports

Blanco, JC, Sundseth, K. ‘The situation of the wolf (Canis lupus) in the European Union – An in-depth analysis. (2022) A report of the N2K Group for DG Environment, European Commission. 

Commission, June Infringement Packages: Key Decisions. (18^th June 2015), available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/cs/memo_15_5162 (date accessed: 20^th March 2026).

Class notes

A number of key issues focused on matters discussed in class: the role of the Courts in environmental matters, the importance of regulatory action in environmental law and generally, biodiversity law and the Habitats Directive.