Federal Administrative Court WWF and Pro Natura may not contest wolf culls

The right of appeal of environmental organizations is not effective against the federal government's approval of wolf culls. This was decided by the Federal Administrative Court in a ruling published today.

The right of appeal does not allow environmental organizations to challenge wolf culls permitted by the federal government. According to the Federal Administrative Court, the organizations can only challenge the culling orders of the respective cantons.

For this reason, the Federal Administrative Court has not accepted two appeals lodged by Pro Natura, WWF Switzerland and the Swiss Society for the Protection of Birds against the orders of the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). With the contested rulings from November, the FOEN authorized the shooting of certain wolves and packs in the cantons of Graubünden and Valais.

This approval is merely a preliminary part of an administrative procedure, writes the Federal Administrative Court in a ruling published on Friday. Only with the cantonal order to shoot wolves is it considered a so-called population regulation, as provided for by law. The federal government's approval is absorbed by the cantonal shooting order because the enforcement of the Hunting Act is the responsibility of the cantons.

According to the court, if the environmental organizations already had a right of appeal against the approval of the FOEN, this would lead to duplication, which should be avoided for reasons of legal certainty. Access to the cantonal appeal process against the respective cantonal rulings would guarantee access to an appeal procedure.

Environmental organizations: "Only superficial examination"

The three environmental organizations had argued before the Federal Administrative Court that no wolves may be shot without the prior consent of the federal government. Because this approval is mandatory, the cantons have practically no freedom of decision when it comes to the form of their orders. The decisive authority is the FOEN and not the respective canton.

As the ruling of the Federal Administrative Court shows, the organizations criticized the fact that in the case of the canton of Valais, the FOEN had only carried out a "very superficial examination of the obviously inadequate application for approval". It had therefore seriously breached its duty of examination.

In the appeal against the FOEN ruling for the canton of Graubünden, they complain that the FOEN did not carry out a more thorough examination of the files. Otherwise, the Federal Office should have noticed the deficiencies in the application and rejected it.

The ruling is not yet legally binding and can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.

SDA