Switzerland district court case: hunting permits and the rights of wolves

Summary

On January 25, 2024, a citizen lodged an appeal with the Federal Administrative Court, in her own name and as a representative of the wolves affected, against the permit issued to shoot the wolves of the Calfeisental pack. She requested that the hunting order be revoked, and requested that legal representation for the wolves in the Calfeisental pack be examined.

In December 2023, the Swiss Office for Nature, Hunting and Fishing approved a hunting permit within the Canton of St. Gallen, Switzerland to shoot and kill wolves of the Calfeisental wolf pack. The public was denied a consultation process which led to protests in Switzerland. By January 2024, 41 wolves had been shot—14 percent of the total wolf population in Switzerland.

The citizen claimed that because her right to take part in the consultation process for the hunting ordinance was denied (Article 147. Swiss Constitution), she could challenge the shooting order based on the Aarhus Convention (Art. 9 paragraph 2 and 3). She also claimed that the wolves have a right to appeal and to judicial procedures in their own right. This claim was based on Art. 2 paragraph 4 and Art. 120 paragraph 2 of the Swiss Constitution, as well as Art. 5 of the UN Convention on Animal Health and Protection Draft (UNCAPH) of the Global Animal Law Association (GAL).

The Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen rejected her appeal on the grounds that she was not entitled to challenge the Office’s order because she “lacks a special, noteworthy close relationship to the subject matter of the dispute” and that “animals cannot be a party in an administrative procedure or take legal action” and for that reason “the wolves affected by the regulatory measures cannot be represented by the complainant.” (Administrative Court B 2024/20).

While the Administrative Court rejected the case on the basis that wolves do not have the capacity to be a party of legal proceedings, it acknowledged that an environmental organization with a right of appeal can be seen as a legal representative of the wolves to defend their interests based on Art. 12 of the Federal Act on the Protection of Nature and Culture Heritage.

The citizen lodged an appeal against the Administrative Court’s (lower court) judgements with the Federal Supreme Court (case 2C_291/2024), which is currently pending.