Grisons (Switzerland) court case: rights of wolves and children

Summary

In 2024, the Canton of Grisons in Switzerland issued culling orders (authorized actions to reduce population sizes of animals) for wolves, despite a legal action by a child and her mother contesting the orders and arguing it violates the inherent rights of nature and the rights of the child.

Background and Legal Framing
In August 2024, the Office for Hunting and Fisheries of the Canton of Grisons (AJF) asked the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) for permission to cull wolves. The AJF planed to shoot two-thirds of that year’s wolf pups and eliminate two wolf packs in Grisons.

In response to this announcement, a child, represented by her mother, submitted a letter in her own name and on behalf of the wolves to the cantonal authority. She noted that the Earth Species Project expects communication between human and non-human animals to be possible within five to six years with the help of artificial intelligence. Since the wolves cannot yet communicate with the AJF directly, the child stated that she needed to act as their representative.

As a child, the girl aimed to protect other non-human children from being killed. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Swiss Federal Constitution and Article 2(1) of the Swiss Civil Code, the girl argued she has an civic responsibility to protect these wolves. The child also emphasized that, as a minor, she is disproportionately affected by the current ecological crisis. Therefore, combining these two rights and duties, she advocated for the inherent rights of nature and the wolf as an ecosystem engineer.

Because FOEN did not conduct a consultation procedure on the partial revision of the hunting ordinance, the girl requested for her and the wolves’ right to participate in environmental decision-making processes before any culling decision. She based her request on Article 147 of the Swiss Federal Constitution, Article 4(1) of the Federal Act on the Consultation Procedure, Articles 6–9 of the Aarhus Convention, and Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, among others. She also requested access to all related environmental documents.

Despite the girl’s intervention, the Department for Energy, Infrastructure and Mobility (DIEM) published its culling orders against the wolf packs on 4 September–1 October 2024. The child and the wolves were not consulted before the issuance of the culling orders.

DIEM Ruling on Rights of Wolves
On 3 October 2024, DIEM issued a ruling on the intervention of the child on behalf of wolves. The cantonal authority denied access to the documents related to the wolf culling, and declared the request for prior participation in the administrative proceedings concerning the culling of wolves inadmissible.

DIEM referred to a ruling by the Federal Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen (case B 2024/20), and held that wolves do not have the capacity to be parties in administrative proceedings under 641a(2) Swiss Civil Code. DIEM deemed that the girl and her mother lacked standing under Article 50 of the Act on Administrative Procedure of the Canton of Grisons (VRG) and therefore could not represent the interests of the wolves. DIEM further concluded that Articles 6–9 of the Aarhus Convention does not provide a legal basis for granting prior participation or a right to appeal in administrative proceedings concerning wolf culling.

DIEM stated that the ordering of measures to regulate the wolf population is not a matter that affects children more than other citizens. Accordingly, DIEM held that no participation right could be derived from Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Legal Proceedings
On 4 and 28 October 2024, the child, the 80 affected wolves, and their legal representative filed complaints at the Cantonal Court of Grisons. They requested the immediate suspension of the culling orders as an interim measure to protect the lives of the wolves. The complaint states: “Without an inherent right to exist, a living being cannot possess dignity. Nature and its diversity grant wolves such a right.”

Legal Standing of the Wolves
The plaintiffs argued that Article 641a(2) Swiss Civil Code dictates a case-by-case determination on whether the provisions governing objects apply to animals. As a general rule: animals are not objects, but the legal provisions governing objects do apply to animals. However, if a specific legal provision exists regarding the animal, the rules on objects do not apply to animals. The plaintiffs argued that, because wolves are a strictly protected species, international law – particularly the Bern Convention – must be regarded as a specific legal provision. Consequently, the exception on legal provisions governing objects do not apply to wolves and wolves must be regarded as subjects of law.

Regarding the wolves interest in challenging the culling order, the plaintiffs argued that wolves can rely on Article 50 VRG. This legal norm provides that those who are affected by the decision and have a legitimate interest in its annulment or modification are entitled to file a complaint. They argued that the term ‘who’ must be interpreted and can also encompass wolves, since their lives were threatened by the culling orders.

Legal Standing of the Child and Mother
The mother and the minor child pointed out that they are members of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN) and the GARN Youth Hub. They contend this membership reflects a commitment to the protection of nature and reinforces their responsibility to act in defense of the wolves.

They explained that it cannot be expected of them to remain passive while the wolves, which they regard as fellow living beings, are being killed. In their view, being denied standing deprives them of their human dignity, as they seek to cultivate a responsible and respectful relationship with nature and all living beings. They further emphasized the spiritual beliefs of their family: only by fulfilling their role and protecting nature and its diversity can they secure the right to reincarnation. They stressed that the thought of not being able to return in another form of life after death, because no one had granted them the right to save the wolves from death, was deeply distressing.

Cantonal Court
On 17 March 2025, the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Grisons rejected the two complaints (cases VR1 2024 71 and VR1 2024 79). While the court listed the affected wolf packs as plaintiffs in its ruling, they were ultimately denied legal standing. The court concluded that wolves do not have the legal capacity to be parties in administrative proceedings. While the court noted that the legal status of animals has improved with the introduction of Article 641a Swiss Civil Code in 2003, it was of the opinion that Article 641a(2) did not create a new legal category. The court held that only humans have the legal capacity to be parties; animals do not. The court further noted that no provision of the Swiss Federal Constitution or binding international law establishes such capacity for animals. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were denied the right to represent the wolves in court, and the legal complaints could not be admitted due to the lack of legal standing of the wolves.

In addition, the court regarded the complaints by the mother and the minor child as actio popularis (popular action) and therefore inadmissible. The court held that the arguments put forward by the plaintiffs were insufficient to establish standing under Article 50 VRG. It noted that the fact that the minor child has a longer expected lifespan than adults does not, by itself, justify refraining from culling wolves, as the child’s personal quality of life is not directly affected. Regarding the mother, the court emphasized that, although she has been publicly recognized by the media for her long-standing commitment to sustainable and careful environmental practices – a fact the court described as highly commendable and indicative of her genuine dedication to preserving the planet – this, in the court’s view, does not establish a greater personal interest in the future welfare of wildlife in the Canton of Grisons, particularly the protection of wolves on alpine and pastoral lands, compared to other concerned members of the public. The Cantonal Court further held that the complainants’ spiritual beliefs, including considerations related to their future well-being (in the event of reincarnation) could not be admitted since such considerations are not covered by Article 50 VRG and therefore cannot establish standing.

Swiss Federal Supreme Court
On 12 May 2025, the child and the wolves, acting through the mother as their legal representative and co-appellant, brought the case before the Federal Supreme Court. The appellants contended that the lower court violated Article 50 VRG, Articles 6 and 8 of the Constitution of the Canton of Grisons, and international law, in particular the Aarhus Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

On 15 December 2025, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland rejected the two complaints (cases 2C_250/2025 and 2C_251/2025): “Insofar as the complaint is brought in the name of, or on behalf of, the wolves affected by the culling, the Federal Supreme Court has already held that animals, due to their lack of legal capacity, cannot file a complaint (judgments 2C_291/2024 of 15 September 2025, E. 3.4; 2C_458/2024 of 15 September 2025, E. 4.3). Accordingly, the complaint is inadmissible on this point from the outset.”

The Federal Supreme Court further held that the wolf culling orders do not affect the minor child and her mother in their personal legal position. They are no more affected than other animal and wolf lovers, which renders their complaint an inadmissible actio popularis. The Court emphasized that the complainants’ memberships in the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature and the GARN Youth Hub do not change this, as these organizations are not recognized under Article 12 of the Federal Act on the Protection of Nature and Cultural Heritage as entities entitled to file complaints in the public interest.

The Federal Supreme Court also deemed that the cantonal court had not violated the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) by refusing to allow the child to intervene on behalf of the wolves. The Court ruled that the CRC provisions on best interests of the child and the right to be heard, only apply to proceedings directly concerning the child. The Court noted that the girl is neither the addressee of the wolf culling order nor specifically affected by the decision:

“It is not apparent how Complainant 1’s freedom of religion and conscience, guaranteed under Articles 3 and 14(1) CRC (see judgment 2C_405/2022 of 17 January 2025, E. 6.2, pending publication), would be affected by the contested decision. The Convention on the Rights of the Child therefore does not apply in the present case, as this is not a matter concerning Complainant 1.”

Next steps
The minor child, together with the wolves of Grisons, intend to bring the case before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Extent of the Wolf Culling
A total of 48 wolves were shot in Grisons between 1 September 2024 and 31 January 2025. This includes all 12 members of the FUORN pack residing in the Swiss National Park, despite 37,000 signatures collected by WWF, Pronatura, Birdlife and Gruppe Wolf Schweiz protesting the killings. Additionally, three lynxes were killed during the culling operations, as a professional wildlife officer mistakenly identified a male lynx and his two kittens as wolves.

Related Initiatives