Strictly protected or only protected species? According to the VwGH, this makes no difference to environmental organisations' right of appeal
The Austrian Administrative Court (VwGH) dealt with a case regarding the right of environmental organisations to challenge a decision ordering the forced culling of chamois, a species listed in Annex V of the EU Habitats Directive (FFH). Although the relevant hunting act limits environmental organisations' rights to challenge decisions related to strictly protected species in Annex VI, the VwGH ruled that environmental organisations must be able to challenge culling decisions involving Annex V species as these killings must also comply with EU environmental law.
With reference to the ECJ the VwGH emphasised that also the culling of Annex V species must be based on monitoring the species' conservation status. Removals are not permitted if the conservation status is unknown. Although protected species can be hunted more easily than strictly protected species, their removal is also subject to restrictions, especially if their conservation status is unfavourable. In such cases it is generally necessary to impose measures such as hunting bans.
This decision is also of great importance for the possible reduction of the protection status of the wolf species. If the protection status of the wolf was downgraded from Annex IV (strictly protected) to Annex V (protected), culling could be allowed under less restrictive conditions. However, even with a lower protection status, the focus would remain on maintaining or restoring a favourable conservation status, which, given the wolf's current unfavourable status in Austria, would still prohibit hunting.
Serious gaps and implementation contrary to international law: Austria delivers final report to Aarhus Compliance Committee
In 2010, ÖKOBÜRO filed a complaint with the Aarhus Convention's Compliance Committee, highlighting Austria's inadequate implementation of public access to environmental information, participation, and legal remedies. The Committee found that Austria needed to improve access to courts for environmental organizations, particularly by ensuring their ability to challenge governmental decisions across all environmental laws.
Despite ongoing efforts, Austria's implementation remains deficient, with several issues: limited legal remedies beyond EU environmental law, lack of recourse for inaction and certain environmental plans, and no participation in criminal environmental cases. Additionally, strict recognition criteria for environmental organizations hinder their involvement. Austria faces potential legal action from the European Commission due to these gaps.