The Last Say? Comment on cjeus Judgement in the Tapiola Case (C-674/17)

IF 1.2 Q1 LAW
Jan Darpö
{"title":"The Last Say? Comment on cjeus Judgement in the Tapiola Case (C-674/17)","authors":"Jan Darpö","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01701009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is a comment to the judgement from October last year by the European Court of Justice’s in the Tapiola case (C-674/17). It can be seen as a follow-up to what I wrote about the Advocate General Henrik Øe’s opinion in the case, which was published in last issue of this journal (J. Darpö, Anything goes, \njeepl\n 2019(3) 305–318). The case concerns a request for a preliminary ruling from the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court about the possibilities open under Article 16(1)(e) of the Habitats Directive (92/43) to perform license hunts on a strictly protected species listed under Annex iv to that Directive, namely the wolf (Canis lupus). This comment first describes the main points in the findings of the cjeu. Thereafter, a discussion follows focusing on three issues. The first concerns the relationship between Article 16(1)(e) of the Habitats Directive and the other derogation grounds in that provision from the strict protection of species. The next issue deals with the relationship between Annex iv and Annex V species, an issue linked to the assessment of the conservation status. The final question relates to how this conservation status is decided concerning species which roam over vast territories, not bothering about administrative restrictions such as national boarders or international obligations. At the end, I will make some concluding remarks about the wider implications of the judgement for the species protection under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive (2009/147).","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01701009","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01701009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article is a comment to the judgement from October last year by the European Court of Justice’s in the Tapiola case (C-674/17). It can be seen as a follow-up to what I wrote about the Advocate General Henrik Øe’s opinion in the case, which was published in last issue of this journal (J. Darpö, Anything goes, jeepl 2019(3) 305–318). The case concerns a request for a preliminary ruling from the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court about the possibilities open under Article 16(1)(e) of the Habitats Directive (92/43) to perform license hunts on a strictly protected species listed under Annex iv to that Directive, namely the wolf (Canis lupus). This comment first describes the main points in the findings of the cjeu. Thereafter, a discussion follows focusing on three issues. The first concerns the relationship between Article 16(1)(e) of the Habitats Directive and the other derogation grounds in that provision from the strict protection of species. The next issue deals with the relationship between Annex iv and Annex V species, an issue linked to the assessment of the conservation status. The final question relates to how this conservation status is decided concerning species which roam over vast territories, not bothering about administrative restrictions such as national boarders or international obligations. At the end, I will make some concluding remarks about the wider implications of the judgement for the species protection under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive (2009/147).
说了算?对Tapiola案(C-674/17)中cjeus判决的评论
本文是对欧洲法院去年10月对Tapiola案(C-674/17)的判决的评论。这可以被视为我写的关于检察长Henrikæe对此案的意见的后续,该意见发表在本杂志的最后一期(J.Darpö,Anything go,Jepel 2019(3)305-318)。本案涉及芬兰最高行政法院就《栖息地指令》(92/43)第16(1)(e)条规定的对该指令附件四所列严格保护物种狼(Canis lupus)进行许可证狩猎的可能性作出初步裁决的请求。这篇评论首先描述了cjeu研究结果的要点。此后,重点讨论了三个问题。第一个问题涉及《栖息地指令》第16(1)(e)条与该条款中关于严格保护物种的其他减损理由之间的关系。下一期讨论附件四和附件五物种之间的关系,这是一个与保护状况评估有关的问题。最后一个问题涉及如何决定在广阔领土上漫游的物种的保护地位,而不考虑国家边界或国际义务等行政限制。最后,我将就《栖息地指令》和《鸟类指令》(2009/147)对物种保护的更广泛影响发表一些结论性意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信