Why Malta will not pay hunting fines (2)

I refer to the letter Spring Hunting Case by Darrell Pace (February 5) and to Arnold Cassola's pathetic attempt at contradicting it (February 8).

Prof. Cassola persists in misinforming readers about the European Commission's decision to refer the issue of spring hunting to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). He refers to the ECJ decision against France on non-respect of fishing quotas, and calls it a "precedent". What he does not say is that the dispute with France dates back to 1991, when the case was brought to the ECJ, and the court ruled against France's inadequate control systems. Then in 2001, after more than a decade of inspections of French ports, the European Commission complained once again to the ECJ. The ECJ decision imposing fines against France was taken on July 12, 2005 after nearly 15 years of legal confrontation.

By contrast, Malta's case has only now been sent to the ECJ for the first time. The European Commission has certainly not spent a "decade of inspections" of Maltese hunting. This is its first complaint against Malta concerning hunting. Interestingly, it is being made following a report to the Commission by Marcin Libicki, chairman of the EU Petitions Committee, who hastily compiled his paper after a "three-day fact-finding mission" (sic) in May 2006, not after a decade of inspection. Besides, unlike France, Malta has a priori declared that it would abide by the ECJ's judgment on the case.

Consequently, it is blatantly unbecoming of the professor to call the French case "a precedent" and to keep obstinately declaring that Malta will incur fines or penalties if it loses its case in favour of spring hunting. If Malta loses the lawsuit, the ECJ could ultimately impose fines or penalties only if it were to receive a second complaint from the European Commission with proof that Malta was not abiding by the ECJ ruling.

Perhaps Prof. Cassola would explain to The Times readers what he expects to gain by his superficial scaremongering tactics.