Large carnivores in administrative courts

Pihel Sarv
Judge of Tallinn Administrative Court

Photo session for court communications. We are sitting with colleagues from the district and circuit courts under the imposing staircase hall arches in the historic courthouse at Pärnu Road 7, coffee cups in hand. We embody a professional, yet cheerful, group at work. We’re looking for something to talk about while the photos are being taken.

“What do you have in your diary?” I ask spokesperson Maria.

“I’ve got a whole page here full of times for your wolf proceedings,” says Maria, showing her notebook.

Immediately, the conversation gets going. Everyone has something to say about wolves, bears and lynxes. In the end, even the photographer Silver gets involved. He says that in his new neighbourhood, it is not recommended to leave your dog alone in the yard, as both lynx and wolves have been seen around. However, he doesn’t seem fazed by it. “I’d love to take photos of them,” he says.

Decisions on the conservation or hunting of Estonia’s three large carnivores – the brown bear, the wolf and the lynx (Ursus arctos, Canis lupus and Lynx lynx) – usually attract lots of public attention. The fascinating, yet also fearsome, large animals with whom we share our homeland are of great interest to many. So let’s find out where these disputes originated from. What do administrative courts base their passion-igniting decisions on and what has been found in case law so far?

Wolf laws here and elsewhere

Section 22(2) of the Hunting Act stipulates that hunting quotas of brown bear, wolf and lynx are established each hunting year by the Environmental Board. The hunting year starts on 1 March, instead of 1 January. The Board bases its hunting quotas on the Conservation and Management Plan for Wolf, Lynx and Brown Bear[1], which is currently set for the period of 2022 to 2031[2]. The action plan aims to ensure that Estonian society functions and develops in peace and harmony with strong large carnivore populations fulfilling their ecological function. The plan, in collaboration with scientists, has determined how many litters of bears, wolves, and lynxes there should be in Estonia to keep their status favourable and sustainable. Before the hunting season, the number of litters with cubs under one year old should be between 20-30 for wolves, over 80 for lynx and over 70 for brown bears.

Due to the poor state of the population, no hunting of lynx has been allowed since the 2016 hunting season. The action plan foresees that lynx hunting will not start until the number of lynx litters is at least 100. As lynx numbers in our forests have increased, it cannot be ruled out that this will be reconsidered in the coming years. So far, however, the courts have been dealing with wolves and bears in disputes over hunting quotas.

The Estonian state does not have a free hand when it comes to decisions on the conservation and management of large carnivores. First of all, we need to bear in mind the requirements of the “Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats” (Bern Convention)[3] developed by the Council of Europe. Both Estonia and the European Union (EU) are parties to the Convention.[4] The brown bear is listed in Appendix II of the Convention, which lists strictly protected species. The wolf and the lynx are listed in Appendix III, which lists species that are less endangered and under less strict protection. The wolf’s threat assessment was reduced and it was moved from Appendix II to Appendix III only recently, in spring 2025.[5] The Standing Committee of the Bern Convention found that wolves are doing better in Europe than before. In ten years, their numbers have almost doubled from around 11,000 to 20,000.[6] It was decided to relax their protection in order to give Member States more flexibility to address the socio-economic challenges posed by the continued expansion of the wolf population range.

Member States have an obligation to ensure that the conservation of the population of a species included in Appendix III to the Convention is not endangered by hunting (Article 7). The killing of a species in Appendix II with stricter protection status may only be allowed in exceptional circumstances where there is no other way to ensure the safety of, for example, crops, domestic animals or humans (Articles 6 and 9).

Secondly, the EU Habitats Directive[7] and the case law of the European Court of Justice interpreting it are central to decisions on the conservation and management of large carnivores. “What has the European Union to do with our bears, wolves and lynxes?” you might ask. “The conservation of wild fauna is an important objective of general interest pursued by the Community,” the recitals of the Habitats Directive state. “In the European territory of the Member States, natural habitats are continuing to deteriorate and an increasing number of wild species are seriously threatened; whereas given that the threatened habitats and species form part of the Community’s natural heritage and the threats to them are often of a transboundary nature, it is necessary to take measures at Community level in order to conserve them”.

Under the Habitats Directive, protected species are also divided into protection categories of varying degrees of strictness. The protection regime is similar to that of the Bern Convention.

Species in Annex V are subject to less stringent protection. Hunting may be allowed, but Member States must ensure that the species retains its favourable conservation status (Art. 14). The conservation status of a species is favourable if its population has remained viable over the long term and its natural range is stable and shows no signs of decline (Article 1(i)).

Annex IV of the Directive lists species under strict protection, the killing of specimens of which is generally prohibited (Article 12). Exceptionally, if there is no other satisfactory solution and the favourable status of the population is maintained, the killing of specimens may be allowed to protect various essential interests – for example, to prevent significant damage to crops or livestock, or for the safety of the public (Article 16).

For a long time, the brown bear, wolf, and lynx have generally been listed as Annex IV animals in Europe, meaning they are under strict protection. Depending on local circumstances, Member States have been able to negotiate a derogation. Thus, large carnivores in some parts of Europe have been subject to less stringent protection regimes. An exception also applies to Estonia: our wolf and lynx populations were already excluded from Annex IV of the Habitats Directive as a result of accession negotiations.[8] They are subject to the protection provided for in Annex V. Recently, however, there has been a major Europe-wide change. Following the downgrading of the wolf’s conservation status under the Bern Convention, the Habitats Directive was also amended in the summer of 2025. All European wolves were included in the Directive’s less stringent protective regime in Annex V.

The provisions of the Directive concerning the possibility to allow the hunting of large carnivores have been transposed in Estonia in a very concise manner in the “Hunting Rules“[9]. According to the rules, bears may be hunted from August to October to prevent damage in the affected area or to protect human health and life. Hunting of wolves is allowed from 1 November until the end of the hunting year and hunting of lynx from 1 December until the end of the hunting year. In conjunction with the previously cited provision of the Hunting Act, large carnivores may be hunted to the extent specified by the Environmental Board. As regards the clarifications concerning the requirement to maintain the favourable conservation status of the species or the absence of alternatives, the case law has been based directly on the Directive.[10]

The Nature Conservation Act stipulates that damage caused by brown bears, wolves and lynxes, as well as the costs incurred to prevent damage, are partially compensated by the state.[11]

European Court of Justice case law

Let’s first look at what the European Court of Justice has found on the hunting of large carnivores. To date, a number of wolf hunting cases have reached the European Court of Justice. As most of Europe’s wolf populations have so far been under the stricter protection of Annex 4 of the Habitats Directive, we can draw guidelines from wolf decisions primarily for our bear hunting cases.

Let’s start with an earlier infringement procedure story: C–342/05 Commission vs. Finland (judgment of 14 June 2007). Finnish wolves have mostly been under a stricter protection regime, with the exception of populations in reindeer herding areas. The case concerns the part of Finland where wolves were strictly protected. The Finnish state allowed limited wolf hunting to prevent damage caused by wolves. The European Commission found that Finland was in breach of the Habitats Directive. The Commission found that wolf damage can be avoided by means other than preventive hunting. Repellents and electric shocks can be used. Livestock and dogs can be confined indoors at night. Accidental damage can be compensated by the state to herders. In addition, the Commission pointed out that if hunting is permitted preventively, it is unlikely that the specific wolves causing significant damage will be killed.

The European Court of Justice found that the Finnish state had failed to assess the impact of preventive hunting on the status of the wolf population, nor had the state shown that there was no satisfactory alternative solution. The court clarified that, in order to allow for exceptional management measures, significant damage does not in itself have to have already occurred. However, there is insufficient scientific support for the assumption that killing one or a few individuals from a wolf pack would increase the animals’ fear of humans. There is also scientific evidence to the contrary, suggesting that breaking up the pack may actually increase threats. By allowing preventive hunting without demonstrating that it would actually prevent damage, Finland breached its obligations under the Habitats Directive.

In case C-674/17 Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola (judgement of 10 October 2019), the reference for a preliminary ruling was submitted by the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court. An environmental association went to court in Finland to challenge the permission given to two hunters to kill a total of seven wolves during the 2015/2016 hunting season. Hunting was allowed for general population control purposes, primarily to increase tolerance of the people in the area towards wolves and to reduce poaching. By allowing legal hunting and thereby combating poaching, it was also hoped to make life safer for wolves and thus better protect them. The Finnish court asked the European Court of Justice whether it is permissible under the Directive to allow wolf hunting for the purpose of curbing poaching.[12]

The European Court of Justice recognised that combating poaching is an important objective and a major challenge. However, there is no reliable scientific evidence that allowing hunting actually significantly reduces poaching. Poaching can be combated through effective surveillance and various measures to increase public sense of security. The Finnish state has not shown that there are no alternative solutions. In granting the hunting permits, the state had also failed to properly assess the conservation status of the wolf population in question and the impact of hunting on it. When assessing the impact of legal hunting, it had to be taken into account that the wolf population was also significantly threatened by poaching in the same area. The court stressed that a Member State must base the decision to grant derogations on the best available scientific information. This requirement also applies to the identification of satisfactory alternatives. In cases where scientific evidence raises doubts as to whether the conditions for granting a derogation are met, the precautionary principle should be applied and hunting permits should not be given.

The following reference for a preliminary ruling concerning wolf hunting reached the European Court of Justice from Romania: case C-88/19 Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor (judgment of 11 June 2020). The case began with a wolf that developed a habit of visiting the yard of a home, playing with dogs there and eating their food. Wildlife Department staff arrived at the scene with a veterinarian. The wolf was stunned and taken away. The plan was to take the wolf to a shelter where wolves rescued from zoos were kept. However, the animal escaped during transport and hid in the surrounding woods.

A local NGO filed a criminal complaint against the parties involved, arguing that at first, permission should have been sought under the derogation provisions to handle the wolf. The Romanian court asked the European Court of Justice whether the derogation provisions of the Habitats Directive also apply where a protected animal has left its natural habitat.

The European Court of Justice clarified that the protection regime does not depend on where the wolf is at the time. Under the Habitats Directive, all animals that live in the wild and therefore play a role in natural ecosystems are protected. An animal’s natural range, i.e. the area in which it lives, moves or feeds, may also coincide with an area of human habitation. Wolves live in close proximity to areas used by humans in many parts of the EU. The Directive’s derogation provisions are intended, among other things, to resolve conflict situations. Member States are required to put in place rules to allow for effective and timely, scientifically justified derogations from the protection regime where necessary.

The next reference for a preliminary ruling, in Case C-436/22 ASCEL (judgment of 29 July 2024), originated in Spain and concerned an area where wolves are subject to less stringent protection under Annex V (north of the Douro River valley). An environmental association went to court in Spain to challenge the state’s wolf hunting plan. First, the domestic court questioned whether a more lenient protection regime in the northern part of the country was justified at all, given the generally poor state of wolves in Spain. Secondly, the Spanish court asked for clarification on the spatial perspective in which the conservation status of the species should be assessed when deciding whether to allow wolf hunting.

The European Court of Justice clarified that the fact that a species is included in the Annex V of the Directive, which provides for less stringent protection, does not mean that it is necessarily a species with a favourable status. Also, Annex V species may only be hunted if their favourable status is maintained. Otherwise, hunting must be prohibited. Hunting must also be prohibited if effective monitoring of the status of the species is not ensured. Whether a species is in a favourable conservation status needs to be assessed first at the local and national level and then, where possible, at the transboundary level. The latest scientific data must be used and the precautionary principle must be followed.

Austrian wolves also reached the Court of Justice of the European Union: in case C-601/22 WWF Österreich and others (judgement of 11 July 2024). The story started with a wolf that killed dozens of sheep in alpine pastures. The Tyrolean provincial government decided to permit the killing of the wolf. Alternative measures were not considered feasible. Sheep flocks in the Alps are small. Protective measures (building fences, keeping herding dogs, hiring shepherds) would be very costly for sheep farmers.

Environmental organisations challenged this decision, which led to a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Austrian court. The court examined whether the derogation could also take into account the future indirect economic damage caused by the abandonment of traditional sheep farming by shepherds because of wolves. Alpine pastures may therefore become overgrown and attractive landscapes may disappear. Both biodiversity and tourism would suffer.

The court found that the hypothetical and abstract risk did not justify a derogation to the protection regime. The court considered the concern that sheep farmers would pack their bags for good because of wolves to be too general and hypothetical. The threat must be attributable to the wolf being considered for hunting.

The condition for a derogation is that there is no satisfactory, scientifically and technically justified alternative. To find the optimal solution, the ecological, economic and social advantages and disadvantages of different courses of action must be considered. The possibility of adjusting human behaviour to facilitate the smooth co-existence of wolf populations, herds and livestock farmers should be analysed. The cost of an alternative protective measure must be taken into account, but it is not determinative. This has to be weighed against the ecological impact of the derogation to the protection regime. Member States have a responsibility to develop systematic conservation management measures. Countries are not left to bear the costs of such measures alone: they can access funding from Union-level programmes.

And finally, our own wolves join the scene in Europe: case C-629/23 Estonian Large Carnivores (judgement of 12 June 2025). In Estonia, an environmental association appealed to the administrative court, challenging a permit to hunt 140 wolves during the 2020/2021 hunting season. The decision was based on the action plan for 2012-2021, which found that the status of wolves in Estonia was favourable. According to the plan, hunting was to be used to keep the number of wolves between 150 and 250. This was found to maintain the population in good status while reducing the damage caused by wolves. The action plan explained that the Baltic wolf population is part of a Eurasian population whose range includes Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, north-eastern Poland, Belarus, northern Ukraine and parts of the Russian oblasts.

However, by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, a new action plan had been established, according to which Estonia’s wolf population was no longer in a favourable state. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)[13], the wolf population in Estonia was classified as Vulnerable. The environmental association that took the case to court found that the conservation status of wolves in Estonia is not favourable. Allowing hunting on such a scale would further aggravate the situation of the species.

The Supreme Court referred the case to the European Court of Justice[14], asking for advice on whether the status of the population should be assessed at the level of the Member State or in a broader perspective. The Supreme Court also asked whether local economic, social and cultural needs and specificities can be taken into account when assessing the conservation status of a species.

The European Court of Justice reiterated what it had already said: the conservation status of a species must be assessed primarily at the Member State level. If a species does not have a favourable conservation status in a Member State, it cannot fulfil its ecological function there. This is the case even if the national population is part of a larger population with a favourable conservation status. An assessment under the Habitats Directive is not strictly linked to an IUCN assessment, but IUCN findings may be part of the scientific data that a Member State must take into account.

However, when assessing the conservation status of a species, it is also appropriate to explain how wolves are faring throughout the natural range of the population, i.e. across borders. For smaller countries in particular, the status of wolves as a species with a wide range of movement, including genetic diversity, can depend significantly on what happens beyond national borders. Countries should cooperate, including by sharing information on known cross-border movement and conservation management measures. The assessment must also take into account foreseeable changes in cross-border movement possibilities. For example, the erection of border fences between the Baltic States, Belarus and Russia could lead to a major change for our wolf population.

The economic, social and cultural needs as well as regional and local specificities characterising the situation in a Member State may be relevant in assessing the status of the species. This is because they are among the factors that can influence the distribution and abundance of wolves in the national territory over the long term. However, they do not provide a basis for assessing the species’ status as favourable in situations where the three cumulative conditions for favourable status are not met. These are the long-term viability of the species in its natural habitat, the stability of the natural range and the large enough size of the habitat for the long-term survival of the species.

The Supreme Court now has to clarify whether the status of the wolf was reasonably considered favourable in the 2012-2021 action plan. If this is the case, the Supreme Court will have to decide whether the permit to hunt 140 wolves allowed the favourable status to be maintained. At the time of writing, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this.

Estonian court cases

Both wolf and bear hunting quotas are disputed in administrative courts. The first to reach the courts were wolf hunting disputes. The earliest of these, Case No 3-20-2368, is already familiar: it is a dispute about the hunting quota for the 2020/2021 hunting year, in which the Supreme Court referred a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice. In this case, the administrative court dismissed the environmental association’s appeal in this matter, finding that the status of the wolves was favourable and that the hunting quota set by the Board did not endanger it. The circuit court agreed. The case reached the Supreme Court through an appeal on a point of law by an animal protection association.

Next, the same association challenged the decision of the Environmental Board to set the hunting quota for the 2024/2025 hunting year at 90 wolves (Case No 3-24-3025). The administrative court has not yet reached a final decision in the case.

In the legal proceedings, the environmental association also requested a suspension of wolf hunting until the court ruling comes into force. The administrative court granted interim relief to the wolves, prohibiting hunting of wolves pending the court proceedings. The court found that the prospects of success of the appeal were good. When allowing wolf hunting, the Environmental Board did not assess the conservation status of the species at either the local or national level, relying only on a transboundary assessment. The Board failed to take into account that wolves are assessed as vulnerable under the new action plan. The Board did not clarify whether appropriate preventive measures had been taken in the counties where the highest number of incidents occurred. The Board’s argument that hunting was necessary to avoid the spread of negative public sentiment was, in the court’s view, empty rhetoric.

The Environmental Board challenged the administrative court’s interim relief order. The circuit court then lifted the interim relief order and allowed wolf hunting to continue.[15] The circuit court found that the hunting of 90 wolves would not have a significant negative impact on the wolf population in Estonia in the long term. The need to stop hunting does not therefore outweigh the need to protect the economic interests of livestock farmers and the state’s resources in compensating for predator damage. The circuit court noted that the only method of avoiding predator damage should obviously not be hunting. Animal keepers should be motivated to implement other protective measures as well. According to the circuit court, this has been done.

In Case No 3-25-3999, the environmental association challenged the hunting quota for wolves (84 animals) for the 2025/2026 hunting year. The proceedings of this complaint in the Tallinn Administrative Court are still in their early stages. However, the issue of the application of interim relief has been resolved. As in the previous case, the wolves were denied legal protection. The administrative court and the circuit court followed the reasoning of the circuit court’s interim relief order concerning the previous hunting year.

Let’s now look at how the bears have fared in Estonian courts. Bear hunting disputes have been circulating in administrative courts since 2022. In case No 3-22-1629, the environmental association challenged the order of the Environmental Board, which established a hunting quota of 90 brown bears for the 2022/2023 hunting year. The Board justified the permission to hunt with the need to prevent damage to beehives and to maintain the bears’ fear of humans. The association that brought the case before the court found that the Board’s decision was contrary to the Habitats Directive. The Board has not shown that there are no satisfactory alternatives to avoid the damage. Beehives can be protected by an electric fence.

The administrative court upheld the appeal, finding that the hunting permit was unlawful.[16] The Board had not demonstrated a link between hunting quotas per county and the damage caused to beehives in the same area. There were not many damage events. The court found that this could be a normal commercial risk, not significant damage. Large carnivores have an important ecological function. There may be a hidden objective in the determination of hunting quotas, contrary to the Directive, to prevent the growth of the local bear population. The court also found that the Board had failed to show a causal link between the increase in bear numbers and the increase in damage. The court found that the amount of damage may actually increase due to the reduction of food resources that are important for bears, as a result of extensive logging, eutrophication, and fertilisation among other things. Habitat fragmentation can also have a significant impact.

The court also found that the Board had not shown that reducing the number of bears in conflict areas would help to reduce the damage. Bears are generally fearful of humans. Some bears can become a nuisance and stay close to humans when they become accustomed to the food made available by humans.

The court considered the claim that the more bears there are, the more likely a bear will attack a person to be arbitrary. According to the action plan, attacks can be prevented by raising people’s awareness of how to avoid attracting bears and how to behave when encountering a bear. Finally, the court found that proper explanation had not been given on whether alternative measures had been taken to prevent the damage. According to the action plan, predator control fences and herding dogs are very effective in preventing damage.

The administrative court’s decision entered into force when the circuit court left it unchanged in its decision of 18 October 2024[17]. The circuit court agreed that the Board had not shown that beekeepers would be likely to suffer extensive damage if 90 bears were not hunted. The administrative court’s suspicion that the purpose of setting the hunting quota is instead to limit the increase in the number of bears is relevant. The circuit court also agreed that beehives can be effectively protected by a proper and functioning electric fence.

Next, the Tallinn Administrative Court heard a dispute against the decision on the establishment of the hunting quota for bears for 2023/2024 (Case No 3-23-1659). The Environmental Board allowed the hunting of 96 bears this season, considering it necessary to prevent significant damage and ensure the safety of the population. The same environmental association went to court again, arguing that it was not legal to derogate from the strict protection regime for bears in this way.

The Tallinn Administrative Court upheld the appeal by decision of 7 February 2025. The court pointed out that bear attacks on beehives have shown a downward trend in recent years. This is not because of the quota of bears being hunted, but because the alternative protection measures are fulfilling their purpose. Bears rarely kill livestock. Bears also visit fields to feed, but the extent of the damage caused by bears and the damage caused other animals, such as wild boars, has not been determined. In conclusion, the court found that the Board had not shown how hunting 96 brown bears would prevent particularly significant damage.

Again, the court found that the justification that hunting is necessary to ensure human safety remained general and hypothetical. There is no difference in the danger posed by bears in areas where bears are hunted and in areas where they are not allowed to be hunted. Scientific evidence suggests that it is easy access to food that reduces bears’ fear of humans, not if humans do not hunt bears.

This judgment has not yet entered into force: the Environmental Board appealed it. According to current information, the circuit court decision is expected in April 2026.

Next, a dispute over the hunting quota for brown bears for the 2025/2026 hunting year (71 bears; Case No 3-25-2491) reached the court. This case has not yet reached a judgment on the merits. However, it is worth mentioning that this is the first case where a court decision (Tallinn Circuit Court’s order of 26 September 2025[18]) suspending the bear hunting as a preliminary legal protection measure came into force. In the previous two cases, the bears did not receive legal protection and the hunting went ahead despite legal proceedings.

The circuit court found that another appeal was likely to succeed. Hunting was not targeted at areas where damage caused by bears was evident. It is also not clear whether the damage to agricultural producers, including the beekeeping sector, that hunting is intended to avoid is significant. There is no satisfactory justification for claiming that there are no effective alternative solutions. Regarding the purpose of ensuring the safety of the public, the circuit court wrote that due to the increase in the number of bears, there are more reports of bear sightings, including near settlements. However, it cannot be concluded from this that the bears posed a threat to humans. There have been six bear attacks in Estonia since 2000 in which a person was injured. All of these took place in the forest; half of them during bear hunting.

Following the suspension of larger-scale bear hunting, the Environmental Board issued an order in autumn 2025 allowing the hunting of five bears in specific areas of damage. This order was also challenged and is pending in the Tallinn Administrative Court (Case No 3-25-3246). Tallinn Circuit Court applied partial interim relief in the case[19]. By the time the order was made, two bears had already been hunted. On one of the other three, the circuit court found the prospects for success on the appeal to be slim. The Board had shown that the sheep farmer whose flock was being attacked by the bear had taken effective preventive measures by building a high electric fence and locking the animals in a barn at night. The circuit court banned the hunting of the remaining two bears. The court found that the Environmental Board had failed to establish whether appropriate measures had been taken to prevent bears from accessing beehives, the cornfield and the cemetery.

So, greater clarity is slowly coming, but there is still no way to put an end to the stories of large carnivores in Estonian courts. New chapters are to be expected soon. Therefore, I will end the article today with three dots.

…

Forest elder, forest elder,
Listen old grey one of the forest,
The golden king of the forest,
The shiny coat of the forest,
The son of Holy St. George!
Ban your angry dogs,
Shut away your big dogs,
Send the wolf into the marshland,
Keep the bear in the birch grove,
Let your dogs sleep in the swamp,
Let my herd graze on the meadow.
I put my staff by the roadside,
God’s peace be with you!

 H II 42, 583 (2) < Karksi Parish – Ernst Kitzberg (1891)

____________________________

[1] Approved by the Director General of the Environmental Board by Order No 1-1/22/32 of 18.02.2022. Available at https://kliimaministeerium.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2023-06/Suurkiskjate%20kaitse%20ja%20ohjamise%20tegevuskava%202022-2031.pdf (25.01.2026).
[2] On the action plan, see section 49 of the Nature Conservation Act.
[3] Available at https://rm.coe.int/16802ec575 (25.01.2026).
[4] A list of the Parties to the Convention is available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=104 (25.01.2025).
[5] Bern Convention website news: https://www.coe.int/en/web/bern-convention/-/modification-of-wolf-protection-under-the-bern-convention-enters-into-force (27.12.2025).
[6] Ministry of Climate press release: https://kliimaministeerium.ee/uudised/hundil-laheb-euroopas-jarjest-paremini (27.12.2025).
[7] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
[8] In relation to brown bears, Estonia was granted an exemption from the obligation to establish special protection areas for the protection of the species, but not from the obligation to ensure strict protection of the species; see in this respect the Tallinn Circuit Court’s judgment of 18 October 2024 in case No 3-22-1629, p. 20.
[9] Decree of the Minister of the Environment No 32 of 28 May 2013.
[10] Nature Conservation Act subsection 3(2) defines the indicators of favourable status for the species. The definition is based on that of the Habitats Directive. The terms “favourable protection status” and “favourable status” must be considered synonymous in this context (see the Order of the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of 13 October 2023 in Case No 3-20-2368, p. 14).
[11] Section 61 of the Nature Conservation Act and Decree of the Minister of Climate of 2 February 2024 No. 5 “Methodology for assessing damage caused by an animal, specified scope and procedure for compensation for damage, and specified scope and procedure for compensation of expenses incurred for damage prevention measures.”
[12] More specifically, the Finnish court asked whether this was permissible under Article 16(1)(e) of the Directive. Article 16 sets out the possibilities for derogation from the strict protection regime for specimens of species in Annex IV. Subsection 1(a) to (d) lists the different objectives for which a derogation is possible. Point ‘e’, on the other hand, does not specify a specific purpose, but says that a derogation may be granted “under strictly supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, for the capture or keeping of certain specimens of the species listed in Annex IV in limited numbers specified by the competent national authorities”. Since the curbing of poaching did not fit any of the objectives mentioned in points (a) to (d), the Finnish court asked whether it would be permissible under point (e).
[13] International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).
[14] Order of the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of 13 October 2023 No 3-20-2368/46.
[15] The Tallinn Circuit Court’s order of 23 December 2024 in case No 3-24-3025 is available through the Riigi Teataja database: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtulahendid/fail.html?id=390603658 (08.03.2026).
[16] Judgment of the Tallinn Administrative Court of 6 April 2023 in case No 3-22-1629 in the Riigi Teataja: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtulahendid/fail.html?id=336534010 (08.03.2026).
[17] Judgment of the Tallinn Circuit Court of 18 October 2024 in case No 3-13-2415 in the Riigi Teataja: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtulahendid/fail.html?id=383738528 (08.03.2026).
[18] Order of the Tallinn Circuit Court of 26 September 2025 in case No 3-25-2491 in the Riigi Teataja: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtulahendid/fail.html?id=420381443 (08.03.2026).
[19] Order of the Tallinn Circuit Court of 27 October 2025 in case No 3-25-3246 in the Riigi Teataja: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtulahendid/fail.html?id=423774740 (08.03.2026).