*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Does compensation for damage to aquaculture caused by wildlife protected by the Birds Directive constitute state aid? This is in essence the question referred by the Latvian Supreme Court to the Court of Justice of the Union for a preliminary ruling, following a dispute between the national environmental protection authority and Sātiņi-S, which purchased 600 hectares of ponds in a nature reserve in Latvia, which was subsequently included in the Natura 2000 network, and was denied by that authority a claim for compensation for damage to aquaculture caused by birds and other protected animals, on the grounds that Sātiņi-S
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers
Already Subscribed? Sign-in
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.
Read one article for free
Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.