Spring hunting case (1)

Publio Danny Rosso (February 2) asks if the Malta-EU Information Centre (MIC), which I led until 2003, had lied in the information it provided on spring hunting prior to the EU referendum held on March 8, 2003.

I can assure Mr Rosso that it did not.

It bears repeating that the MIC information was based on:

(a) The official EU Common Position dated September 27, 2002 on the results of accession negotiations on the environment (CONF-M 110/02) which acknowledged that it is indeed possible to use a derogation available in EU law to allow spring hunting under certain conditions and that Malta would be doing so after accession. This was confirmed again by the European Commission in its announcement only last week.

(b) The (Maltese) hunting regulations published in January 2003 which were amended to reflect the outcome of accession negotiations, including on spring hunting (see DOI press release, No. 91 dated January 24, 2003).

Additionally, prior to publication, the MIC information was also counter-checked directly with the person who negotiated on hunting on Malta's behalf.

Mr Rosso may recall that, since these negotiations were concluded in 2002, the spring hunting season was opened in Malta in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Now, in the wake of a judgement of the European Court of Justice delivered against Finland in December 2005, that is, three full years after our accession negotiations were concluded, the Commission appears to have had second thoughts and now insists that the autumn season is a sufficient alternative to spring hunting.

I understand that this matter will form the merits of the case that the Commission has decided to institute against Malta.

It is strange how, at one and the same time, I have been accused by some quarters of having betrayed hunters and by others, of having championed their cause. The hollowness of these accusations is borne out of their inherent contradiction.