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

Summary

In 2024, the Canton of Valais 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
On 21 August 2024, the Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Office of the Canton of Valais (SCPF) asked the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) for permission to cull wolves.

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 on 22 August 2024. Because the Federal Office for the Environment (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.

SCPF Decision on Rights of Wolves
Despite the girl’s intervention, the Department of Security, Institutions and Sport (DSIS) published its culling orders against the wolf packs Augstbord, Hérens-Mandelon, Nanz and Les Toules on 10 September – 9 October 2024. The child and the wolves were not consulted before the issuance of the culling orders.

On 10 October 2024, the legal representative of the child and the wolves submitted a letter to the SCPF, noting that no response had been received to the earlier submission and subsequent telephone follow-up. The mother criticized the cantonal authority for failing to issue an appealable decision, which effectively blocked access to legal remedies and denied the applicants the possibility of protecting the lives of the wolves. She reminded the authority that the child and the wolves had explicitly requested that an appealable decision be issued if the requested participation rights and interim measures for the protection of wolves were denied.

The cantonal authority immediately responded, stating that access to environmental information would be granted, provided that the costs of CHF 100 were covered. In addition, the SCPF indicated that it would not issue an appealable decision regarding the other points raised (participation and interim measures), because it considered itself not responsible anymore.

Legal Proceedings
On 11 October 2024, the child, the 23 affected wolves, and their legal representative filed a complaint with the State Council of the Canton of Valais, alleging a denial of justice. On 5 February 2025 – after the period for shooting wolves had already ended on 31 January – the State Council declared the complaint as inadmissible.

Legal Standing of the Wolves
While the State Council listed the affected female wolves Abricot von Les Toules, Martigny von Hérens-Mandelon, Arolla von Augstboard and Allalin von Nanz and the other family members as plaintiffs in its decision, they were ultimately denied legal standing. The State Council noted that animals do not possess legal capacity to be parties, pursuant to Article 641a(2) of the Swiss Civil Code (CC) and as discussed by Graham-Siegenthaler, in: Aebi-Müller/Müller [eds.], Bernese Commentary on Swiss Private Law, Art. 641a CC, paragraphs 25 and following.

Consequently, the State Council held that animals can neither have party status in administrative proceedings nor pursue legal remedies. For the same reason, the State Council concluded that the wolves affected by the regulatory measures could not be represented by the complainant, referring to the Federal Administrative Court judgment A-566/2024 of 5 August 2024, paragraph 5.

Legal Standing of the Child
In addition, the State Council regarded the complaint by the minor child as actio popularis (popular action) and therefore inadmissible. The Cantonal Government held that the arguments put forward by the girl were insufficient to establish standing under Article 44 paragraph 1 of the Administrative Procedure Act of the Canton of Valais (VVRG). According to the State Council, the Aarhus Convention does not confer standing in the present case either, as it does not require the States Parties to introduce a popular complaint mechanism. To support its argument, the State Council referred to Swiss case law (Federal Supreme Court judgment BGE 146 I 145, paragraph 5.5; 141 II 233, paragraph 4.3.3; Federal Administrative Court judgment BVGer A-4114/2022 of 22 February 2021, paragraph 14.3).

Cantonal Court
On 17 March 2025, the child, the affected wolves, and their legal representative filed an appeal (case A1 25 44) at the Cantonal Court of Valais, and requested legal aid or paying in installments. On 17 June 2025, the Cantonal Court rejected the request for legal aid and the proposed alternative of paying in installments, and required an advance payment of court costs of CHF 1,000 to be paid within 30 days.

Pursuant to Article 29 paragraph 3 of the Swiss Federal Constitution, any person who does not have sufficient means has the right to free legal advice and assistance unless their case appears to have no prospect of success. If it is necessary in order to safeguard their rights, they also have the right to free legal representation in court.

According to the Cantonal Court, due to the very low chances of success of the complaint – because the child, mother, and wolves appeared to have no legal standing – the request for legal aid or for payment in installments must be denied—without the need to examine the applicants’ lack of means.

Legal Representation of the Wolves
Under Article 12 of the Federal Act on the Protection of Nature and Cultural Heritage (NCHA), specific organizations are entitled to appeal on behalf of the wolves. Since those organizations had not challenged the wolf culling orders, the wolves argued they should be provided with alternative legal representation. However, the Court rejected the wolves’ argument.

Legal Standing of the Mother and Child
The Cantonal Court also dismissed the argument of the mother that they have standing as private individuals because the mother needed to earn a living in the environmental sector to secure the livelihood of the child, with wolf protection being an important part of this work. The Court referred to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz et autres v. Switzerland (Application no. 53600/20), and concluded that this case demonstrates only the association, not the private individuals, had victim status under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights in climate-related matters.

Request for reconsideration
On 16 July 2025, the applicants submitted a request for reconsideration, as the legal representative lacked the financial means to pay the advance on court costs within 30 days. The mother invoked their economic freedom under Article 27 of the Swiss Federal Constitution (Cst.), emphasizing the legal obligation of citizens to be financially self-sufficient under Article 6 Cst. She argued that even a fraction of the federal contribution of the CHF 60,000 per wolf pack to the Canton of Valais would suffice to cover the single-parent family’s living costs. Crucially, she stressed that the wolf culling orders directly undermine the work of the family as environmental defenders: by killing the wolf packs, the canton of Valais eliminates the animals on which their activities and income depend, thereby depriving the family of its livelihood.

The applicants also cited Swiss case law (BGE 146 II 17, paragraph 6.5), in which the Federal Supreme Court granted standing to a private individual to bring an environmental complaint and conducted a substantive legal assessment of alleged negative impacts on animals under the Environmental Protection Act (USG) and the Ordinance on the Protection of Animals (TschV). The legal representative of the child and the wolves argued that this demonstrates the Federal Supreme Court’s recognition of animals’ interests and implies, at least implicitly, that animals may be considered legal subjects or that private individuals may defend their interests in court.

The Cantonal Court dismissed the request for reconsideration on 22 July 2025 (case A2 25 36).

Federal Supreme Court
On 15 December 2025, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the advance payment of costs (case 2C_402/2025), lodged by the mother and child on 21 July 2025. It observed that the appellants’ financial circumstances were on record and that the lower court rejected the request for payment by installments with full knowledge of their situation, thereby at least implicitly taking a position on their lack of means. Nevertheless, it dismissed the complaint, noting that the lower court has broad discretion when deciding on advance costs. It further ordered the appellants to bear the court costs of CHF 1,000 for the Federal Supreme Court proceedings, in addition to the advance payment required by the Cantonal Court.

Following the judgment, the mother arranged payment of the Federal Supreme Court costs in installments, which were accepted by the Court. Faced with the choice between paying the additional court fees or purchasing basic necessities such as food, the appellants paid the requested CHF 1,000 to the Cantonal Court to protect the wolves and secure income from their environmental work in the future. The case is currently pending before the Cantonal Court of Valais.

Extent of the Wolf Culling
A total of 35 wolves were shot in the Canton of Valais between 1 September 2024 and 31 January 2025. 17 wolves were from the packs Augstbord, Hérens-Mandelon, Nanz and Les Toules, for which culling orders had been issued, while 18 wolves were from packs with no culling authorization. None of the affected packs were completely eradicated.

Willy Geiger, former Vice Director of the Federal Office for the Environment and current President of Pro Natura Valais, criticizes Switzerland’s current wolf management in the NZZ documentary The Wolf in the Crosshairs – Protect or Kill. As a biologist, he argues that killing alpha individuals leaves younger wolves without leadership, potentially increasing the likelihood of attacks on livestock as they turn to easier prey, such as sheep. In his view, this is the result of regulating wolves without thinking about the consequences.

He concludes: “There is only one solution: on the one hand, effective livestock protection, and on the other hand, regulation that is based on science and tailored to individual packs. What I really do not understand is why things are not handled this way at the political level.”

Related Initiatives