The European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA) has launched a €1m EU4Health call for tenders on 1 August 2025 to provide administrative and secretarial support for the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2025/327 on the European Health Data Space (EHDS Regulation) and related digital health initiatives. The contract will support the coordination of governance bodies and expert groups central to the EHDS’s operational rollout. This initiative forms part of the 2025 EU4Health Annual Work Programme (action DI-p-25-66) and aims to strengthen health systems through effective digital governance.

Family analysis: The Supreme Court was concerned with the question of whether habeas corpus can be used as a remedy where children are placed in foster care via a care order and whether the making of a care order results in ‘detention’. On considering the primary legislation relating to care orders and the legislative regime which establishes the Family Court, neither contain clear words excluding habeas corpus, however the Supreme Court decided that there are other reasons why habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge a care order and highlighted the appropriate routes of appeal. Teertha Gupta KC at 4PB examines the issues.

Competent, apt or valid for a purpose.

The European Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna.

Planning analysis: In CG Fry & Sons v SSLUHC, the Court of Appeal held that regulations 63 and 70 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations) allow for an appropriate assessment to be undertaken at any relevant point in the multi stage process for consenting which includes the determination of applications for the discharge of conditions. The Habitats Regulations require the assessment to be carried out on the whole development before it is authorised to proceed by the implementing decision, not just on the matters affected by the conditions for discharge. The Court of Appeal noted that, if the legislation was not interpreted in this way, there would be a gap in the regime which would enable development to proceed with potentially harmful effects on protected sites without an appropriate assessment having been undertaken because those effects were only identified after the grant of the outline consent. Written by Elizabeth Dunn, partner and Sarah Sutherland, practice development lawyer at Burges Salmon LLP.

Protected areas and protected sites Under section 55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990): ‘Development...means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under the land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land’. Any developer who has bought, or who is thinking of buying, land for development, or intends to undertake any development activity, must first consider whether the land is a protected site or is populated by a protected species. A developer is responsible for finding out if any development is likely to affect a protected area or site. Protected areas and protected sites include: • national parks—areas designated by reason of their natural beauty and the opportunities they afford for open-air recreation, having regard to both their character and to their position in relation to centres of population. See Practice Note: Biodiversity and nature—protected sites • Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty—areas of countryside in England and Wales outside national parks which are designated in recognition

Introduction Habitats and wildlife issues are a key consideration for many development projects in England and Wales. Ecological constraints can influence the suitability of a site for development, affect project design, require changes to construction programmes and, in some cases, prevent development from proceeding without appropriate mitigation, compensation or licensing. This checklist provides a practical guide to the principal habitats and wildlife issues that developers and their advisers should consider throughout the development process, from site acquisition and due diligence through to design, construction and long-term habitat management. It is intended to help identify potential ecological constraints at an early stage, reduce the risk of delays and ensure that appropriate advice is obtained where necessary. This checklist is not intended to provide a comprehensive statement of the law. Instead, it highlights the principal issues that should be considered during a development project and signposts readers to the relevant Lexis+ Practical Guidance content for more detailed information on specific topics, including planning applications, biodiversity net gain, protected species, Habitats Regulations Assessment, environmental impact assessment and wildlife

View or print a full-size PDF versio

STOP PRESS: The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 (expected to come into force on 25 May 2026) introduce a bespoke compensatory measures regime for relevant offshore wind activity, amending both the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. In particular, the usual compensatory measures provisions are disapplied for relevant offshore wind activity and replaced with new requirements linked to benefits to the UK MPA network. This Practice Note will be updated shortly to reflect these changes. This Practice Note considers controls and regulatory issues protecting wildlife, habitats and landscapes in Scotland, and their potential impact and effect for developers and landowners. It explores the legal and regulatory context over protected sites including special areas of conservation (SACs) special protection areas (SPAs), sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), Ramsar sites, marine protected areas (MPAs), national scenic areas (NSAs) and wild land areas (WLAs). It discusses which species, plants, hedges and trees are protected

The mere presence in this jurisdiction coupled with an intent to permanently relocate here.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This was a novel case concerning an individual debtor’s ‘centre of main interests’ (COMI) for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction under the Recast Insolvency Regulation (EU) 2015/848. In summary, the petitioner had served the debtor with a statutory demand at the London address given in various agreements entered between them in respect of the debt, which had been further confirmed by the solicitors of the debtor to those of the petitioner in correspondence regarding the statutory demand. Nevertheless, the debtor maintained (and the court accepted) that his COMI was actually France on the basis of habitual residence. Written by Wendy Parker, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

When determining habitual residence, the emphasis is on a person’s centre of interests, for which the test is an objective one. Intention forms part of the court’s overall assessment, concepts such as 'permanent', 'habitual', 'residence' and 'home' have a mental element that the court is able to assess objectively.