The Swedish wolf-hunting policy is today an issue high on the EU agenda. The European Commission has questioned the Swedish management plan for wolves and the Swedish government has replied by replacing the 2012 licensed hunting with extended protective hunting.
In this analysis, the authors scrutinizes the method of the Court of Justice of the European Union when balancing diverging or even opposing interests protected by EU law. The starting point is two joined cases, where the two authors are critical of the Court’s reasoning and argues that the Court sacrifices the fundamental interest of transparency in order to protect other interests, especially the protection of personal data.