- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-601/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol (Austria) lodged on 19 September 2022 — Umweltverband WWF Österreich and Others v Tiroler Landesregierung
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0601
62022CN0601
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
21.11.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 441/18
(Case C-601/22)
(2022/C 441/26)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Umweltverband WWF Österreich, ÖKOBÜRO — Allianz der Umweltbewegung, Naturschutzbund Österreich, Umweltdachverband, Wiener Tierschutzverein
Defendant: Tiroler Landesregierung
Questions referred
1.Does Article 12 in conjunction with Annex IV to Directive 92/43/EEC, (1) as most recently amended by Directive 2013/17/EU, (2) according to which wolves are covered by the system of strict protection, exempting populations in several Member States, while no such exemption has been provided for Austria, infringe the ‘principle of equal treatment of Member States’ enshrined in Article 4(2) TEU?
2.Is Article 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, as most recently amended by Directive 2013/17/EU, according to which a derogation from the system of strict protection of wolves is only permitted if, inter alia, the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned with a ‘favourable conservation status’ in their ‘natural range’, to be interpreted as meaning that the favourable conservation status must be maintained or restored not in relation to the territory of a Member State, but to the natural range of a population, which may encompass a significantly larger, cross-border biogeographical region?
3.Is Article 16(1)(b) of Directive 92/43/EEC, as most recently amended by Directive 2013/17/EU, to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to direct damage caused by a particular wolf, ‘serious damage’ also encompasses indirect (future) ‘economic’ damage that cannot be attributed to a particular wolf?
4.Is Article 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, as most recently amended by Directive 2013/17/EU, to be interpreted as meaning that ‘satisfactory alternatives’ are to be examined purely on the basis of actual feasibility or also on the basis of economic criteria, given the prevailing topographical, alpine farming and business conditions in the Province of Tyrol?
(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).
(2) Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 adapting certain directives in the field of environment, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193).