- 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-88/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Zărnești — Romania) — Asociaţia ‘Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor’ v TM, UN, Asociaţia DMPA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 12(1) — System of strict protection of animal species — Annex IV — Canis lupus (wolf) — Article 16(1) — Natural range — Capture and relocation of a wild animal of the species canis lupus — Public safety)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0088
62019CA0088
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
17.8.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 271/12
(Case C-88/19) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 12(1) - System of strict protection of animal species - Annex IV - Canis lupus (wolf) - Article 16(1) - Natural range - Capture and relocation of a wild animal of the species canis lupus - Public safety)
(2020/C 271/16)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Asociaţia ‘Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor’
Defendants: TM, UN, Asociaţia DMPA
Operative part of the judgment
Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that the capture and relocation of a specimen of an animal species protected under Annex IV to that directive, such as the wolf, on the outskirts of a human settlement area or within such an area, can fall within the scope of the prohibition laid down in that provision.
Article 16(1) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that any form of deliberate capture of specimens of that animal species in the aforementioned circumstances is prohibited in the absence of a derogation granted by the competent national authority on the basis of that provision.
(*) Language of the case: Romanian.