The Senate adopts the bill
The official file records 69 votes in favour, 10 against and 17 abstentions.
first chamberL43/2026 · verification file
How does a quota stop?
A law can set a number. Administration begins when every intervention leaves a verifiable trace: who recorded it, where, under which category, and what remains.
528hunting grounds in the national distribution
859prevention level for 2026
110intervention level for 2026
24 hproposed deadline to record an intervention
01 / route
A committee recommendation does not close the file.
L43/2026 has moved through the Senate, the Chamber of Deputies, constitutional review and the President's reexamination request. This is the route that can be checked in the Senate's official file.
The Chamber of Deputies adopts
The bill moves to the promulgation stage.
deciding chamberThe Constitutional Court rejects the objection
Decision 733 was published in the Official Gazette on 30 July. The majority reasoning and the dissent take the discussion toward alternatives, evidence and conservation status.
Decision 733The President requests reexamination
The request focuses on selectivity, real-time control, a 2027 recalculation and an adaptive method after 2028.
request registeredThe plenary sends the bill back for a supplementary report
The official record shows 97 votes in favour, 7 against and one abstention for the referral back to committees.
supplementary reportThe committees reject the objections and proposed amendments
The report recommends admitting the law in the form sent for promulgation. In the file checked here, the next plenary vote remains to be tracked.
open statusProcedural source: official L43/2026 file ↗
02 / audit trail
What should a register be able to verify?
The supplementary report describes and rejects a package of amendments. The interface below turns that package into a control chain, then places it alongside the form of the law still under discussion.
The proposed package described a verifiable route: identify, locate, record, count, block and alert.
Selected step
Identify
A unique identifier or genetic database reduces the risk that the same specimen appears twice in separate records.
Supplementary report · pp. 16–19 ↗01
The adopted form sets levels and distributes them across grounds.
02
Harvest and interventions are reported within the existing administrative framework.
03
The reexamination request points to the absence of one real-time mechanism for the national total and remaining quota.
04
The adopted text applies the relevant provisions in 2027 and refers to a genetic-study-based annual order from 2028.
This summarises the statutory form and the argument in the reexamination request. It is not a technical audit of every tool used by administrators in the field.
03 / time
The sensitive year sits between two evaluations.
The adopted text links 2027 to the provisions for 2026, then refers from 2028 to an annual order based on the genetic study. The reexamination request challenged the absence of a mandatory interim recalculation.
859 + 110
for 2026
The adopted text in L43/2026 sets 859 specimens for prevention and 110 for intervention. The prevention distribution appears in an annex across hunting grounds.
Keep this distinction
The Constitutional Court described these as annual maximums that may be harvested. The number does not, by itself, mean there is an obligation to exhaust it.
The same reference?
the request's question
Article 221 applies the relevant level provisions correspondingly in 2027. The President's request describes the practical effect as using the same levels and distribution for two years.
The rejected amendment asked for
An updated assessment before setting 2027 levels: 2026 monitoring, cumulative mortality, sex and age, distribution, conflicts and prevention effectiveness. It would have said explicitly that 2026 levels do not apply automatically in 2027.
The genetic study
as an annual basis
From 2028, the adopted text refers to an annual order based on the genetic study. One rejected amendment would also have added updated population dynamics, cumulative mortality, demographics and conservation status by area or subpopulation.
The method question
Which indicators enter the formula? Who validates them? When can the authority reduce, suspend or recalculate a level? These are governance questions as well as biological ones.
- The reexamination request asks for a public methodology and accessible data.
- The committee report records the rejection of the 2027 amendment.
- At the checked date, the official file does not provide a final plenary result.
04 / rejected package
Six controls proposed. Each closes a different evidence gap.
The reexamination request and supplementary report overlap on selectivity, a register, reporting deadlines, recalculation and transparency. Open each card to see the difference between the request and the rejected text.
Which specimen enters intervention?
The request refers to habituated bears, repeated conflicts, non-lethal alternatives and geospatial verification before intervention.
What remains to verify
A national level does not answer by itself whether a specific intervention is necessary, proportionate and selective.
Is it the same bear in two records?
The amendments described a unique identifier, genetic data, movement between grounds, and a history of incidents, interventions and mortality.
Why it matters
Without a link between records, the same animal may be counted separately in two locations. The report uses this problem to explain the rejected amendment.
When does the event enter the count?
Capture, tranquilisation, relocation, euthanasia or harvest would have been recorded within 24 hours, with mandatory minimum fields.
What the system would do
It would connect each event to a ground, category, specimen and result so that the remaining number is not a delayed estimate.
Who can see what remains?
The proposal asked for the approved level, registered number and remainder for each ground. Once reached, a new record would be blocked in that category.
What happens after a block
An attempt above the level would alert the control authority. The register would not replace checks on legal conditions and necessity.
How do you identify a female with cubs?
The discussed form uses the threshold "cubs under two years". The rejected amendment proposed the observable criterion of a female accompanied by cubs, because age can be difficult to estimate in the field.
Evidence limit
The report records the argument; the file does not solve the identification problem in every field situation.
When does the level change?
Other amendments proposed a national conflict register, a public methodology and adaptive management, with reductions, suspensions or reassessment of levels.
What would enter the analysis
Population dynamics, mortality, demographics, distribution, conflicts, preventive measures and their results. The report records the package's rejection.
05 / scale
2×
Compared arithmetically with the levels recorded by the CCR for the 2024 mechanism, both categories double or nearly double.
Prevention≈ 2.02×
859 ÷ 426 = 2.016
Intervention2×
110 ÷ 55 = 2
The comparison shows a difference in values. It does not explain the cause of the increase and cannot replace analysis of population, mortality, conflict or prevention data.
06 / context
The number sits inside a wider legal and scientific system.
A serious file keeps the legal threshold, field response and population evidence together. These layers meet, but they are not the same instrument.
A derogation requires a tested alternative.
Article 16 of the Habitats Directive requires that there be no satisfactory alternative and that favourable conservation status is not harmed. OUG 81/2021 describes a graduated response: scaring, capture or relocation, then lethal intervention under the stated conditions.
Directive · Article 16 ↗OUG 81/2021 ↗A monitoring infrastructure exists.
The official project reported about 24,000 genetic samples, a long-term monitoring plan, the GenUrs application, zoning and more than 1,100 electric protection systems. MMAP said the reports would be analysed and translated into policies and acts.
MMAP · genetic project ↗ICAS · outputs ↗Official sources publish different intervals.
We show them together so a contextual number does not become a single verdict. The difference may reflect publication date and context; this file does not fill the gap with speculation.
| MMAP, 2025 | 10,657–12,787 |
|---|---|
| CCR, Decision 733 | 10,419–12,770 |
The Court had a majority and a separate opinion. The site flags the difference in reasoning without making its own legal finding.
07 / unknowns
Transparency begins with the limits of the file.
Until there is a public register, every claim about "what remains" needs a source, a date and a definition of the counted field.
Is there already an equivalent administrative platform?
The documents checked describe the absence of one mechanism in the law's text. They do not audit every administrative tool that may exist separately.
openWhat is the remainder for each of the 528 grounds?
In the public file checked, we did not identify an updated national table showing the approved, registered and remaining number ground by ground.
public data to findWho validates a record, and within what deadline?
A 24-hour deadline appears in the rejected amendment. Technical responsibility, control and sanction should be traced through the final law and implementing acts.
to trackWhat formula links monitoring to the level?
A genetic study and conflict data can inform a decision. The public needs indicators, weights, thresholds and an update date to reproduce the reasoning.
methodologyHow is an exception checked after a block?
The proposed system kept legal exceptions and a necessity check. An automatic block does not replace field judgement; the exception record still needs a design.
control designWhat is updated after 2026?
Monitoring, mortality, sex and age, distribution, conflicts and prevention effectiveness are inputs named in the request. It remains to be seen when and in what format they appear together.
update trigger08 / sources
A citable file, with claims in view.
Procedural facts, statutory figures, amendment descriptions, CCR reasoning and scientific sources are separated. The source page contains the full claim register and its limits.
C01–03
Senate official file
Route, votes, reexamination request, supplementary report and procedural status. Open the file ↗
C04–10
Supplementary common report, 25 August
26 pages on rejected amendments, identification, register, blocking, 2027 and 2028. Open the report ↗
C11–14
CCR and the legal frame
Decision 733, Article 16 of the Habitats Directive and OUG 81/2021. CCR decision ↗
C15–16
Genetic monitoring and zoning
Official releases and outputs from the 2021–2025 project. MMAP reports ↗