The wolf, the pony, and equality before the law in Europe

The recent decision of the European Union to downgrade the level of protection of the wolf, moving it from the category of “strictly protected” to “protected” under the Habitats Directive, has sparked an intense legal and political debate. The event that acted as the catalyst for this reform is not a minor one: the attack of a wolf on the pony of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, at her family estate in Lower Saxony.

It is worth remembering that the discussion on the coexistence between large predators and livestock had been ongoing in Brussels for years. Numerous Member States and farmers’ associations had been demanding greater flexibility to manage attacks on livestock, while environmental organizations insisted on the need to maintain strict protection to consolidate the species’ recovery. The debate, therefore, was not new.

What is striking—and legally concerning—is that the trigger that gave visibility and political urgency to the matter was a strictly personal incident affecting the Commission’s top representative. The reaction was immediate: a report was commissioned, consultations were accelerated, and in less than three years, a legal change that had been blocked for decades was enacted.

Beyond whether or not the reform was appropriate, the deeper issue is this: can the private experience of a high-ranking leader justify altering a legal framework that affects 450 million European citizens? The principle of equality before the law, enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, requires that all Europeans be subject to the same rules and that legislative decisions be based on objective, general, and impersonal criteria.

When citizens perceive that a private tragedy precipitates a regulatory change at a continental scale, trust in institutions erodes. Justice must not only be impartial but also appear to be so. And here, the projected image was the opposite: that the law moves swiftly when the person affected is the President of the Commission, while attacks on anonymous farmers in rural areas across half of Europe had not been enough to unblock the debate.

Of course, lawmakers can—and must—address the needs of those who suffer the consequences of living alongside wolves. But such analysis must be based on scientific data, impact assessments, and principles of proportionality, not on the emotional pressure arising from a particular case. The European Union cannot afford to open the door to its leaders’ personal experiences becoming a lever for legislation.

The underlying discussion about the wolf will remain open, as is fitting for a complex issue where biodiversity, rural safety, and culture converge. But what should remain beyond doubt is that equality before the law is non-negotiable. If Brussels is to modify its policies, let it be by the strength of arguments, not the weight of a surname.