Legal clarification

Pinzgau wolf still has a grace period due to EU ruling

A dispute has broken out over the shooting of wolves in Salzburg.

(Bild: Scharinger Daniel)

The Salzburg provincial government is legally examining whether the shooting ordinance is tenable with the ruling of the European Court of Justice. In the meantime, the animal is not yet being hunted. However, the regulation could be finalized in the coming week.

Excitement surrounding wolf hunting in Salzburg following a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Because: wolves must continue to be protected and may not be hunted. On Thursday, the Salzburg state government did not believe that the ruling would have any impact on its plans. Things looked different on Friday. The shooting should actually have been approved on Friday. 

Although state deputy Marlene Svazek (FPÖ) still assumes that the regulations on the shooting of wolves are legally compliant, they will now be reviewed once again by the state legist. In principle, however, it is assumed that the ordinances are legally valid, as the removal is only used as a last resort in areas that cannot be protected. "We will take a close look at the wording of the ruling and incorporate it into the ordinance," says Svazek. She is now primarily concerned with legal certainty for everyone involved, including farmers and hunters. However, the culling ordinance is due to come into force at the beginning of next week.

Wolf representative Hubert Stock with the shot wolf from Rauris.

(Bild: Land Salzburg/Stock)

For the wolf from Niedernsill, which killed three sheep on a mountain pasture at the beginning of July, this still means a grace period. Not everyone believes in the legal validity of the Salzburg regulation. It is clear to the Greens that the EU ruling also applies to Salzburg. "The ECJ makes it clear that the current wolf culls are illegal and must be stopped," says Member of Parliament Kimbie Humer-Vogl (Greens). For her, current shooting regulations must be frozen.

Nature conservation association also criticizes regulation
Hannes Augustin from the Nature Conservation Association takes a similar view: "You have to take the regulations seriously and not ignore them like Marlene Svazek". Like other organizations, the Nature Conservation Association was also involved in the drafting of the ordinance. In addition to a lack of conformity with EU law, Augustin also criticized the fact that the regulation is not expedient and is also not in line with the National Park Act.