Austria / Supreme Administrative Court / Ra 2024/03/0068

Animal welfare association v Upper Austrian Provincial Government
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Administrative Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
26/05/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:AT:VWGH:2025:RA2024030068.L00
  • Austria / Supreme Administrative Court / Ra 2024/03/0068

    Key facts of the case:

    A hunting association applied to the Upper Austrian provincial government for a special permit to shoot a black grouse. Such a special permit is required because black grouse are protected throughout the year in Upper Austria. The Upper Austrian provincial government granted the permit subject to certain conditions.

    An animal welfare association lodged an appeal against the special permit. In particular, it argued that the hunting association's application was not sufficiently justified. It was not clear for what private purposes the shooting was to be carried out. According to the animal welfare association it was unclear why it was necessary at all, why there was no other solution and how it would help to maintain the conservation status.

    The Upper Austrian Provincial Administrative Court dismissed the association's appeal. The association appealed against the decision of the Administrative Court, again arguing that the application for exemption had not been sufficiently justified.

    Key legal question raised by the court:

    The Supreme Administrative Court had to clarify the animal welfare association’s right to appeal. Pursuant to Article 133 (6) 1 of the Federal Constitutional Law, anyone who claims that his/her rights have been infringed by the ruling of an administrative court may appeal against the ruling on the grounds of illegality. The Upper Austrian provincial government argued that the animal welfare association only had procedural rights under the Upper Austrian Hunting Act, but no subjective rights that would entitle it to appeal.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Supreme Administrative Court clarified that the animal welfare association's rights were derived from the Aarhus Convention and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. These provisions oblige Member States to provide effective legal protection, particularly in the field of EU environmental law (such as the Birds Directive or the Habitats Directive). Environmental associations must be able to invoke national provisions implementing EU environmental law or directly applicable EU environmental law. Therefore, if national provisions do not provide for a right of appeal, such a right must be derived from EU environmental law to comply with EU law. The Upper Austrian Hunting Act also implemented provisions of the Birds Directive, which also applies to black grouse. The association was therefore entitled to appeal according to the Supreme Administrative Court.

    In terms of content, the Administrative Court was unable to sufficiently examine whether the exemption permit to shoot the black grouse serves the legally prescribed purpose or whether there had been an alternative satisfactory solution. Thus, the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the contested decision on these grounds alone.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    The right of appeal of environmental organisations under § 84(3) of the Upper Austrian Hunting Act 2024, which is limited to asserting “violations of provisions of this provincial law, insofar as they implement provisions of the Birds Directive or the Habitats Directive”, serves to implement Art. 9 (3) of the Aarhus Convention in conjunction with Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [...].

    Article 9 (3) of the Aarhus Convention, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, obliges Member States to ensure that members of the public within the meaning of this provision of the Aarhus Convention have effective judicial protection of the rights guaranteed by Union law, in particular the provisions of environmental law .... Accordingly, environmental organisations must be able to invoke national legislation implementing Union legislation in the field of the environment, as well as the directly applicable provisions of Union environmental law .... However, insofar as an environmental organisation, as a ‘member of the public concerned’ within the meaning of Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention, bases its right to appeal within the meaning of this case law directly on Union law, it is also limited to having the compliance with the legal provisions arising from Union environmental law reviewed in the proceedings ....

    Therefore, unless the provincial or federal legislature expressly grants an environmental organisation the right to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court on the basis of Article 133(8) of the Federal Constitutional Law, it must be assumed, within the scope of application of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that in order to establish a legal situation that complies with Union law, that an environmental organisation has a subjective public right to compliance with those national legal provisions that implement Union legislation in the field of the environment, as well as with the directly applicable provisions of Union environmental law, so that it can appeal on this basis pursuant to Article 133(6)(1) of the Federal Constitutional Law ....

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Das Beschwerderecht von Umweltorganisationen nach § 84 Abs. 3 Oö. Jagdgesetz 2024, welches beschränkt ist auf die Geltendmachung der „Verletzung von Vorschriften dieses Landesgesetzes, soweit sie Bestimmungen der Vogelschutz-Richtlinie oder der FFH-Richtlinie umsetzen“, dient der Umsetzung von Art. 9 Abs. 3 Aarhus-Konvention iVm Art. 47 GRC […].

    Art. 9 Abs. 3 Aarhus-Konvention verpflichtet die Mitgliedstaaten in Verbindung mit Art. 47 GRC dazu, für Mitglieder der Öffentlichkeit im Sinn dieser Bestimmung der Aarhus-Konvention einen wirksamen gerichtlichen Schutz der durch das Recht der Union garantierten Rechte, insbesondere der Vorschriften des Umweltrechts, zu gewährleisten […]. Demnach müssen Umweltverbände zwingend die nationalen Rechtsvorschriften, die die Rechtsvorschriften der Union im Bereich der Umwelt umsetzen, sowie die unmittelbar anwendbaren Vorschriften des Umweltrechts der Union geltend machen können […]. Soweit eine Umweltorganisation als „Mitglied der betroffenen Öffentlichkeit“ iSd Art. 9 Aarhus-Konvention ihre Beschwerdelegitimation im Sinne dieser Rechtsprechung unmittelbar auf das Unionsrecht stützt, ist sie jedoch auch darauf beschränkt, im Verfahren die Beachtung der aus dem Unionsumweltrecht hervorgegangenen Rechtsvorschriften überprüfen zu lassen […].

    Soweit daher der Landes- bzw. Bundesgesetzgeber einer Umweltorganisation nicht ausdrücklich auf Grundlage des Art. 133 Abs. 8 B-VG das Recht auf die Erhebung einer Revision an den Verwaltungsgerichtshof einräumt, ist im Anwendungsbereich des Art. 9 Abs. 3 Aarhus-Konvention iVm Art. 47 GRC zur Herstellung einer unionsrechtskonformen Rechtslage anzunehmen, dass einer Umweltorganisation ein subjektiv-öffentliches Recht auf Einhaltung jener nationalen Rechtsvorschriften, die die Rechtsvorschriften der Union im Bereich der Umwelt umsetzen, sowie der unmittelbar anwendbaren Vorschriften des Umweltrechts der Union, zukommt, sodass sie in diesem Umfang gestützt auf Art. 133 Abs. 6 Z 1 B-VG Revision erheben können […].