Mitigation and Compensation Measures under the EU Habitats Directive in Selected Member States

This article aims at establishing how national courts interpret the concepts of mitigation and compensation measures under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. Based on a comparative method of legal research, we focus on the implementation of Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Sweetman, Briels and Orleans cases, and its application in the courts of six Member States, i.e. France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Italy and Bulgaria. Our study highlights national courts tendency to interpret the Habitats Directive and related national law so as to cover matters which have not explicitly been dealt with by the CJEU without asking for preliminary rulings. In each legal order, this lack of preliminary references comported a wrongful interpretation of Article 6(3) of the Directive. This finding shows that the lack of preliminary references affected the legal effectiveness of Article 6 HD

Mitigation and Compensation Measures under the EU Habitats Directive in Selected Member States

This article aims at establishing how national courts interpret the concepts of mitigation and compensation measures under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. Based on a comparative method of legal research, we focus on the implementation of Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Sweetman, Briels and Orleans cases, and its application in the courts of six Member States, i.e. France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Italy and Bulgaria. Our study highlights national courts tendency to interpret the Habitats Directive and related national law so as to cover matters which have not explicitly been dealt with by the CJEU without asking for preliminary rulings. In each legal order, this lack of preliminary references comported a wrongful interpretation of Article 6(3) of the Directive. This finding shows that the lack of preliminary references affected the legal effectiveness of Article 6 HD

Mitigation and Compensation Measures under the EU Habitats Directive in Selected Member States

This article aims at establishing how national courts interpret the concepts of mitigation and compensation measures under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. Based on a comparative method of legal research, we focus on the implementation of Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Sweetman, Briels and Orleans cases, and its application in the courts of six Member States, i.e. France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Italy and Bulgaria. Our study highlights national courts tendency to interpret the Habitats Directive and related national law so as to cover matters which have not explicitly been dealt with by the CJEU without asking for preliminary rulings. In each legal order, this lack of preliminary references comported a wrongful interpretation of Article 6(3) of the Directive. This finding shows that the lack of preliminary references affected the legal effectiveness of Article 6 HD

Compensation and Mitigation: Tinkering with Natura 2000 Protection Law

If a plan or project may adversely affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, Article 6(4) Habitats Directive must be applied. This provision imposes strict conditions for authorising a plan or project which may adversely affect the nature values of a Natura 2000 site. In this context the obligation to take compensation measures is the ultimum remedium. Initiators of a plan or project try to avoid the application of the strict conditions of Article 6(4) by mitigating the effects of their plan or project so that the conclusion of the appropriate assessment on the basis of Article 6(3) Habitats Directive will be positive. The trick is to find solutions which allow the negative effects of the plan or project, on the one hand, and the positive effects of the nature conservation measures, on the other, to be balanced. Apart from the classic mitigation measures, several creative solutions are applied in the Netherlands in practice and, so far, are also authorised in the jurisprudence of the Council of State. If the nature conservation measures are inextricably linked to the plan or project, these solutions are variations on the theme of mitigating measures, such as nature inclusive design and netting. If the measures are taken independently of the plan or project, they must be classified as autonomous developments. This article discusses the legal aspects of the different solutions

Effect of Housing Conditions on Cortisol and Body Fat Levels in Female Rhesus Macaques

Macaques are among the most commonly used non‐human primates in biomedical re-search. They are highly social animals, yet biomedical studies often require group‐living animals to be pair‐housed in a controlled environment. A change in environment causes only short‐term stress in adapting individuals, while non‐adapting animals may experience long‐term stress that can ad-versely affect study results. Individuals likely differ in their ability to adapt depending on individual characteristics. Changes in cortisol and body fat levels may reflect these different individual responses. Here, we investigate the long‐term effect of a change from group‐ to pair‐housing on cortisol and body fat levels in 32 female rhesus macaques, exploring whether age, dominance rank, original cortisol, and body fat levels are related to long‐term stress in pair‐housing. Hair samples were analyzed for cortisol levels, while anthropometric measurements and computed tomography were performed to quantify body fat. Monkeys served as their own control with a 7.5‐month period between the measurements. Cortisol levels increased, while average body fat levels did not differ when individuals were moved from group‐ to pair‐housing. Cortisol and body fat levels were not significantly correlated. Changes in cortisol were independent of age and dominance rank, whereas individual variation in body fat alterations was related to the group‐housed body fat level and dominance rank. Although this study did not identify individual characteristics related to long‐term stress in pair‐housing, the individual variation confirms that some individuals are more resilient to change than others and provides possibilities for future refinement studies