Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

HFD:2005:1

Country/Territory
Finland
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Jan 7, 2005
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Högsta Förvaltningsdomstolen
Seat of court
Helsinki
Reference number
HFD:2005:1
Language
Finnish
Subject
Wild species & ecosystems
Keyword
Management/conservation
Abstract

The case concerned whether or not it was possible to make an exception and permit hunting during the closed season under section 41, paragraph 2 of the Hunting Act.

 

The applicant had requested to be permitted to kill three specific lynx in order to protect nearby fur farms with minks and foxes. Lynx are protected wild species. This is one of the reasons why the state to a large extent covers losses that for example owners of farms have due to lynx and other predators. The ministry of agriculture and forestry, with a reference to the possibility of receiving compensation, concluded that there were no special circumstances necessitating an exception from the rules.

 

The applicant appealed the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court demanding permission to kill the lynx in question. In this instance, the applicant specified that the losses mentioned were not limited to killed farm animal, but perhaps even more due to disturbances to the breeding of animals. These losses are hard to estimate and prove. Therefore it is rare to receive compensation for them.

 

The Supreme Administrative Court began by stating that there is indeed a possibility to grant an exception to the prohibition of killing animals during the closed season if this is necessary to protect wild fauna or flora or to prevent particularly significant damage to crops, livestock, forestry, fisheries, reindeer husbandry, water or other property. However, this is provided that there is no other satisfactory solution and the decision is not detrimental to the maintenance of the species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. A strong protection of the lynx is also advocated in the habitats directive. Important for the assessment was also the fact that several lynx had already been killed in the area in order to prevent damage.

Conclusively the court did not grant an exception, stating that it had not been shown that the exception was needed in order to prevent the damages.

Full text
HFD-2005-1.pdf