L43/2026 · editorial register
Sources, figures and limits
Every published claim in the file is linked to a source, an edition and a limit of interpretation. Verification date: 26 August 2026.
How to read the table
“Fact” means the claim appears in the linked document. “Proposal” means it appears in an amendment or reexamination request. “Limit” shows what the source cannot prove on its own.
| ID | Published claim | Primary source | Calculation / display | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C01 | The official file lists L43/2026 on the agenda and records the 25 August supplementary report, with no final plenary result in the file checked. | Senate file ↗ | procedural status | A committee recommendation is not a final vote. |
| C02 | The Senate adopted on 18 March, the Chamber of Deputies on 22 April, and the file records referral for promulgation on 4 May. | Senate file ↗ | dates and votes | We report the official record. |
| C03 | The reexamination request was registered on 10 August; referral for a supplementary report was on 24 August; the report is dated 25 August. | Request ↗; routing ↗; report ↗ | timeline | A report date is not a plenary adoption. |
| C04 | The adopted text sets 859 for prevention and 110 for intervention in 2026; 2027 is linked by referral to the relevant provisions, and from 2028 the annual order is based on the genetic study. | Report, pp. 7, 23–25 ↗; CCR ↗ | 859 / 110 | The adopted text and practical effect argued in the request are kept separate. |
| C05 | The rejected amendments described a national system with databases, identification, geolocation, validation, centralisation and alerts. | Report, pp. 4–6, 13–18 ↗ | audit chain | This is a proposed and rejected package, not a live register. |
| C06 | The amendments proposed individual identification, 24-hour recording, a ground-level remainder and blocking/alerting when the level was reached. | Report, pp. 16–19 ↗ | event → remainder → block | Rejection does not prove that no equivalent administrative tool exists. |
| C07 | The request argues that the law does not provide one real-time mechanism for harvests and remaining quota across 528 grounds. | Request, pp. 4–5 ↗ | 528 grounds | This is the request's argument, not a technical audit of every administrator. |
| C08 | The request asks for 2026 monitoring, cumulative mortality, sex/age, distribution, conflicts and prevention effectiveness before 2027, plus language against automatic carry-over. | Request, pp. 4–5 ↗; Report, pp. 24–25 ↗ | input list | The amendment was rejected by committees. |
| C09 | The discussed form uses the threshold "cubs under two"; the amendment proposed the observable criterion of a female accompanied by cubs. | Report, pp. 9–10 ↗ | criterion difference | The file does not solve field identification. |
| C10 | Other amendments covered a conflict register, adaptive management, methodology, public aggregate data and reduction/suspension/reassessment of levels. | Report, pp. 19–22 ↗ | governance package | These are proposed mechanisms, not current duties inferred from the report. |
| C11 | For comparison, the CCR records 426 prevention and 55 intervention animals in the earlier 2024 mechanism; 859/426 ≈ 2.02 and 110/55 = 2. | Decision 733 ↗ | 859 ÷ 426 = 2.016; 110 ÷ 55 = 2 | Arithmetic, not a causal explanation. |
| C12 | The CCR describes prevention as an annual maximum that may be harvested and intervention as an extreme measure after other options; the majority did not treat the absent digital ledger as a constitutional defect. | Decision 733 ↗ | majority reasoning | The separate opinion reasons differently about evidence and European tests. |
| C13 | Article 16 of the Habitats Directive requires no satisfactory alternative and no harm to favourable conservation status. | Directive 92/43/EEC ↗ | legal text | This is not legal advice and does not finally apply the test to the law. |
| C14 | OUG 81/2021 describes a graduated response from scaring to capture/relocation and lethal intervention under the stated conditions. | Legislative portal ↗ | national framework | Field decisions depend on the full text and facts. |
| C15 | MMAP publishes the interval 10,657–12,787, while the CCR decision cites 10,419–12,770. | MMAP ↗; CCR ↗ | source-specific intervals | We do not choose one population number as the headline. |
| C16 | The official project includes a genetic monitoring plan, GenUrs, zoning and more than 1,100 electric systems; MMAP describes these as material for later analysis and policy. | ICAS ↗; MMAP ↗ | scientific track | Monitoring and zoning are not the same as a quota ledger. |