On 23 June 2026, the Senate approved bill no. 1552, primarily sponsored by Senator Lucio Malan, which deeply amends Law no. 157 of 11 February 1992, «Rules for the protection of homeothermic wild fauna and for hunting». The green light came with 80 votes in favour, 56 against and 2 abstentions, at the end of a committee process lasting nearly a year and following the postponement of the vote, initially scheduled for 19 June, due to lack of quorum. The text now moves to the Chamber for final approval.
This amounts to an indiscriminate opening up of hunting activity, designed to secure the support of the hunting world and the entire supply chain that depends on it. The protests of environmental and animal protection associations, the appeals of the scientific community, and the objections raised by European institutions have all been in vain. Below we reconstruct the contents of the reform and the many areas of concern from a constitutional, EU law, and international perspective.
What the Malan Bill provides for
The political core of the reform lies in a rewriting of the title and principles of Law 157/92: the word «management» is placed before «protection», and hunting is redefined by law as an activity that «contributes to the protection of biodiversity and the ecosystem». The hunter thus becomes, on paper, an indispensable «bioregulator» for the protection of fauna. This is a reversal of reality: hunting ceases to be a recreational activity permitted by derogation and becomes, nominally, a conservation tool.
Among the main measures approved by the Senate:
- downgrading of the ISPRA opinion — the highest public technical-scientific body on environmental matters — from binding to merely advisory, in favour of a body with a political composition and a pro-hunting orientation;
- extension of the hunting season beyond the month of February, i.e. into the pre-nuptial migration and nesting period;
- expansion of huntable species (including, for example, the greylag goose and the pigeon) with simplified procedures for adding further species, and transposition of the downgrading of the wolf from «strictly protected» to «protected»;
- opening of hunting in maritime and forestry public land (potentially coastlines, beaches, cliffs) and extension of huntable areas, with an obligation on Regions not to designate more than 30% of their territory for fauna protection;
- liberalisation of live decoys, with the possibility of capturing birds to be used as «bait» and no limits on the keeping of specimens declared «bred in captivity»;
- weakening of the hunter-territory connection through the expansion of Hunting Territorial Districts (ATC) and greater hunting mobility, including for foreign hunters, including non-EU nationals;
- reduction of the sanctioning framework: reduced penalties for those who kill protected species and the conversion of licence suspension from mandatory to discretionary, as well as financial penalties for those who protest against killings.
Wildlife is an inalienable asset of the State
The reform establishes a principle that is unacceptable on legal grounds, even before ethical ones: that which presents hunters as indispensable «bioregulators» for the protection of fauna. This is an idea that clashes with the reality of the facts, because wildlife heritage is inalienable State property, protected in the national and international interest pursuant to Art. 826 of the Civil Code and Art. 1 of Law 157/92 itself. It therefore cannot be entrusted to the very people who kill that fauna.
The protection of biodiversity can never be genuinely guaranteed by hunting activity: this is demonstrated by the constant failure of «selection» and «containment» activities, which in many contexts have only produced an increase in the target species. Defining hunting as «an activity useful for conservation» is not a scientific finding, but a regulatory artifice: it serves to make every pro-hunting measure appear consistent with constitutional principles, in particular with Art. 9 of the Constitution.
Areas of legal concern
Conflict with Art. 9 of the Constitution
Since 2022, Art. 9 of the Constitution expressly protects «the environment, biodiversity and ecosystems, also in the interest of future generations». The Constitutional Court has on multiple occasions qualified wild fauna as inalienable State property and environmental protection as a «primary and cross-cutting value» (among others, judgments no. 407/2002; no. 7/2019). Entrusting the «protection of biodiversity» to hunting activity and reducing protected areas appears difficult to reconcile with the new constitutional parameter: a statutory definition is not sufficient to transform into conservation what remains a taking.
Violation of the Birds and Habitats Directives
This is the most immediate front. The extension of the hunting season beyond 10 February affects the pre-nuptial migration and nesting period, in conflict with Art. 7 of Directive 2009/147/EC («Birds»), as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EU (cases C-435/92 and C-157/89), which holds that protection must be complete precisely during the most vulnerable phases of the biological cycle. The downgrading of the ISPRA opinion from binding to advisory risks depriving the system of the technical-scientific basis required by European case law, while the liberalisation of live decoys touches an area already subject to the EU Pilot procedure opened in 2023. The downgrading of the wolf, finally, must be read in the light of Directive 92/43/EEC («Habitats»).
The incoming infringement procedure
With this legislation advancing, the Government is pursuing an operation with a predictable outcome: the opening of an infringement procedure against Italy for having approved a measure that seriously conflicts with EU law. The European Commission itself has in effect already signalled this, with a note from the Directorate-General for the Environment — dated 18 December 2025 and addressed to the Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security — criticising the measure point by point, noting that «the proposed amendments raise several concerns». The letter was kept hidden and only came to light thanks to environmental and animal protection associations. According to the WWF, in three years there are already two infringement procedures opened and one Pilot procedure still ongoing.
The Council of Europe’s call (Bern Convention)
To the EU law front has been added that of international law. The Standing Committee of the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Council of Europe) has sent the Ministry a formal request for clarification, asking the Italian Government to demonstrate, on legal and scientific grounds, the compatibility of Bill 1552 with Italy’s international obligations. Any failure to comply exposes the country to the activation of the procedures provided for by the Convention.
The legislative technique: a «piecemeal» reform
The Malan Bill is not an isolated episode. As the head of legal protection for nature at WWF Italy has noted, since 2023 there have been eight separate legislative interventions that have amended the hunting law in 23 points — often intervening multiple times on the same articles with provisions inserted in heterogeneous measures (budget law, mountain law). This fragmentation, in addition to raising doubts about systemic coherence and compliance with the principle of homogeneity of legislative measures, makes democratic and technical oversight of wildlife protection choices more opaque.
Yet another step back for wildlife protection
At present, the avenues for intervention have narrowed, but are not exhausted. The measure now moves to the Chamber: the Government aims to reach final approval, while the paths of institutional engagement remain open, and, in due course, constitutional review and European litigation. Several associations are also assessing the feasibility of a repeal referendum.
As legal experts, Animal Law Italia will continue to provide every form of support to anyone wishing to do what is possible to contain the effects of this law: from analysis of the constitutional grounds of unconstitutionality to be brought to the attention of the Chambers and, if necessary, of the Constitutional Court, to reporting conflicts with European Union law and the Bern Convention. Wild fauna is a common good: defending it means defending the public interest and the safety of citizens themselves.