On appeal against the decision of the Criminal Court East-Flanders, Oudenaarde division of 27 February 2024, in a case of various infringements of CITES, species protection and animal welfare regulations in the Flemish Region of Belgium, the Court of Appeal of Ghent imposed a total fine of 40.000 euro and a definitive ban on keeping animals for the defendant. The Court ruled that the defendant illegally kept many protected birds, turtles and reptiles, as well as illegal nets and cages, and that he had caused important, real damage to nature and biodiversity.

The Court referred to the first instance judge’s reasonings and confirmed the financial compensation, using the BIOVAL calculation method. The Court stated that as a reintroduction of the same number of birds is prohibited by the Flemish Species Regulation of 15 May 2009, financial compensation is the only possible way of restoration and that this financial “compensation restores the legal situation”.

The defendant was therefore ordered to pay a financial compensation of in total 62.545,06 euro to the Flemish Environment and Nature Fund (MINA-fonds) within 6 months, on the basis of art. 16.6.6 of the Flemish Region Decree of 5 April 1995 on General Environmental Policy. This public fund is granted all the amounts of fines and compensations for nature restoration purposes. The Court reduced the financial compensation granted by the first instance judge for the Eurasian jay (Garrulus glandarius) by 1.500 euro per specimen, stating that this bird may be combatted under strict circumstances during part of the year.

In a case of illegal killing of a grey heron (Ardea cinerea), a sanction of € 4.000 (half of it suspended) was ordered. In addition to the punishment, the public prosecutor also demanded financial compensation for the damage to nature and referred to Bioval's calculation method. The legal basis is art. 16.6.6 of the Flemish Region Decree of 5 April 1995 on General Environmental Policy. According to this article the court can order restoration of the place into the original state or “adjustment works”. The court decided that restoration in natura by breeding and reintroducing was not only impossible, but also prohibited according to the Flemish Species Regulation of 15 May 2009. The court ordered financial compensation instead, using the BIOVAL calculation method: € 5.000 per grey heron (large long-living species, least concern, normal cultural significance, normal/generalist ecological significance and normal contribution to welfare). The court considered that the damage to nature was estimated by Bioval as accurately and concretely as possible by means of scientific criteria, and therefore must be applied. The offender was ordered to pay € 5.000 to the Flemish Environment and Nature Fund (MINA-fonds) within 4 months. (This public fund is granted all the amounts of fines and compensations for nature restoration purposes.)

In a case of various infringements of CITES and species protection regulations in the Flemish Region of Belgium, a sanction of 8 months imprisonment (4 months suspended) and a fine of 24.000 euro was ordered. The defendant was also banned from keeping animals for life. An NGO Bird Protection Flanders was granted 7.500 euro for its personal moral damages in view of its statutory goal and the efforts it deploys to protect nature and birds. Furthermore, regarding the intrinsic ecological damage, the court applied art. 16.6.6 of the Flemish Region Decree of 5 April 1995 on General Environmental Policy. According to this article the court can order restoration of the place into the original state or “adjustment works”. The court decided that restoration in natura by breeding and reintroducing a same number of birds was not only impossible, but also prohibited according to the Flemish Species Regulation of 15 May 2009. The court ordered financial compensation instead, using the BIOVAL calculation method stating that it was based on scientific and objective criteria and that the amounts are reasonable. The court ruled the defendant had caused ecological damage by possessing the birds illegally. He was ordered to pay a financial compensation of in total 68.545,06 euro to the Flemish Environment and Nature Fund (MINA-fonds) within 6 months. This public fund is granted all the amounts of fines and compensations for nature restoration purposes.

In the case of illegal shooting of a white-tailed sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), known as “Morzine”, a hunter was sentenced to a four-month suspended prison term and fined up to €1,000 for other hunting offences. Additional penalties included the publication of the judgment in hunting journals, a three-year ban on carrying firearms, the suspension of his hunting license for three years, and the confiscation of weapons and ammunition.

The white-tailed sea eagle is a strictly protected species, listed as critically endangered on the French Red List, and is the focus of a national action plan coordinated by the Ligue de Protection des Oiseaux (LPO) France.

Several NGOs were awarded moral damages ranging from €500 to €3,000. The NGO “Aigles du Léman” received €15,800 for material damages, corresponding to the costs of reintroducing and caring for the killed eagle.

The court emphasized that, as of 2024, only seven breeding pairs and eleven young birds remained in two regions of France. The loss of even one individual therefore had a serious impact on the species’ conservation status.

As the coordinator of the national action plan, LPO France was recognized as having the capacity to take appropriate measures to restore the ecological damage. The court reaffirmed its duty to ensure full compensation for ecological harm and stated that it retained sovereign discretion in determining the most appropriate method for assessing financial reparation.

The court accepted the valuation method, proposed by LPO France, elaborated by the Direction de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement (DEAL) of La Réunion, which estimated the value of the killed eagle at €81,000. This amount was based on the purchase price of an eaglet (€1,700), multiplied by various indices (ranging from 1 to 10) that were not specified in the ruling. The valuation considered factors such as the species’ ecosystem services, its critically endangered status, symbolic importance, the existence of a conservation program, and its key ecological role.

The municipality where the killing occurred also sought compensation for ecological damage, but its claim was rejected. The court held that ecological damage constitutes a single, indivisible harm that cannot be apportioned among multiple claimants.

In a case concerning the illegal killing of a Golden Eagle – a species strictly protected under French law – a wind farm operator was sentenced to pay a fine of €200,000 (half suspended), a one-year operating ban, and to publish the judgment in several newspapers. The company’s director was personally fined €40,000 (also half suspended).

In addition, both the company and its director were ordered to pay €3,000 in ecological damages to the NGO Ligue de Protection des Oiseaux Occitanie for the loss of a male Golden Eagle (€5,000 was asked by the NGO). The decision was based on Article 1246 of the French Civil Code, which requires anyone causing ecological harm to repair it. Article 1247 defines ecological damage as a “significant harm to the elements or functions of ecosystems, or to the collective benefits that humans derive from the environment.” Under Article 1249, ecological damage must, in principle, be repaired in kind. Only when restoration in kind is legally or factually impossible, or when remedial measures are insufficient, may the judge order monetary compensation to be used for environmental repair.

The judgment does not explain how the €3,000 figure was calculated. However, the court noted several factors: the offenders knew that a couple of Golden Eagles lived near the wind farm; the construction permit had already been annulled because the impact assessment for the species was deemed inadequate; the death of the male destabilised the survival of the species at the site, which plays a crucial role in both the local and interregional ecosystem; and significant investments were made to conserve the species. Furthermore, several nature protection NGOs were awarded moral damages (€6,000 each).

In a criminal case concerning the destruction of the habitat of the Hermann's tortoise (Testudo hermanni) in a Natura 2000 zone, a winery and its directors were ordered to pay to the French State an amount of €184,752.40 for ecological damages. This amount is to be used for nature restoration. The winery had ploughed 6,000 m2 and cleared trees and vegetation on an area of ​​over 5 hectares in the “Plaine des Maures” nature reserve in the Var without a permit.

By judgment of 26 March 2024, the French Court of Cassation rejected the winery's claim and confirmed the monetary assessment of the ecological damage by the Court of Appeal under art. 1249 of the French Civil Code, because restoration in kind by the winery was not possible as a matter of fact. The compensation for the loss of habitat of the Greek tortoise and the Western green lizard over 5 hectares was estimated on the basis of the estimated number of tortoises destroyed and a reintroduction cost of €6,127.72 per tortoise and €4,000 per Western green lizard. This reintroduction cost includes not only a value for each specimen before and after the reintroduction, but also the cost of monitoring the reintroduction during 2 years. The Court stressed that the “market value of a specimen would not be an appropriate criterion”.