Background to the complaint

1. The complainant was concerned that the European Commission has not yet concluded an ongoing infringement investigation about Swedish legislation and practices that allegedly breach the EU’s Habitats Directive by allowing for unauthorised and excessive killing of wolfs.

2. The Commission launched the infringement procedure in 2010 (INFR(2010)4200[1]). In 2011, it issued a formal notice to Sweden, later that year a reasoned opinion and, in 2015, an additional reasoned opinion.

3. The complainant turned to the Commission after it had already started its infringement investigation. The Commission rejected the two complaints that the complainant made on the matter (the last one early 2023), stating that that it is continuing to monitor the issue.

4. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s concern that the Commission is failing to take action to bring to conclusion an infringement investigation about wolf hunting in Sweden (infringement proceedings INFR(2010)4200).

5. The Ombudsman inquiry team met with representatives of the Commission to gather information on the matter.

6. The Commission’s representatives gave information on how they have been handling the matter so far. It stated that experience allows for the reasonable assumption that the next stage in the infringement procedure could take place by the end of 2023, depending on the factual, legal and political events that take place over the coming months. An extract from the meeting report is annexed to this decision.

7. The Ombudsman sent the meeting report to the complainant, who did not submit comments.

The Ombudsman's assessment

8. The infringement procedure at issue is one of numerous environment related infringement procedures that have been open for several years, according to the Commission’s online database.[2] While the Commission has wide discretion in how it handles infringement matters, where infringement procedures take a considerable amount of time - in this case, more than ten years - this must be examined in the context of whether the Commission has continued to work on the case, or whether there have been long periods of inactivity (several months).

9. The handling time in this case, although very long, does not appear to be characterised by a lack of attention to the EU law issues it raises or a lack of strategic approach to the resolution of those issues.

10. It nonetheless goes without saying that in infringement cases of such very long duration, principles of good administration require that the handling of the case should be particularly diligent. Long periods of inactivity (several months) should be avoided.

11. In this case, the Commission, has informed the Ombudsman that, whilst no date has been fixed for the next step in the case, there is a reasonable assumption that the next stage could take place by the end of 2023.

12. In light of this, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified at this stage.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion[3]:

No further inquiries are justified at this stage.

The complainant and the European Commission will be informed of this decision.

 

Tina Nilsson

Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg, 24/07/2023

 

 

[1] The infringement case and its history can be searched here: https://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/infringements-proceedings/infringement_decisions/screen/home?lang_code=en

[2] The database shows 85 open cases dating from 1998-2015.

[3] This complaint has been dealt with under delegated case handling, in accordance with the Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions