Does not legally justify its decision

Practical application:

The court requires proof that the damage directly results from the no-hunting zone. The owner should commission an ecological expert report comparing deer density and damage before and after the zone's creation. Without this causal link, the expropriation judge cannot award compensation, as per the 2002 ruling.

Practical application:

This ruling clarifies that mere proximity to a no-hunting zone isn't enough. The farmer must log detailed records of damage incidents, wild boar sightings, and ideally show that before the ban, hunting kept numbers low. They should request the park authority's wildlife monitoring data and may need a court-appointed expert to establish the direct consequence required by the law.

Practical application:

To succeed in a compensation claim, the owner must demonstrate that the damage was the direct consequence of the no-hunting zone creation, not pre-existing. They should submit a formal claim to the park's public body with dated photographs, receipts, and a statement from a wildlife expert linking the deer density increase to the hunting prohibition. If refused, they may take the matter to the expropriation judge, ensuring they have the causal evidence required by the Cour de Cassation.