Hunting decision expected 'within days'
The decision by the European Court of Justice on whether to temporarily disallow hunting in spring will be handed down within the next few days.
Many were expecting the President of the Court, Vassilios Skouris to hand down his ruling straight after yesterday's oral hearing on the case conducted in Luxembourg, but the court has decided to take more time.
The court yesterday said a final decision on whether to uphold the European Commission request to issue interim measures banning spring hunting in Malta will be communicated to the government and the European Commission in the coming days.
Yesterday's sitting, held behind closed doors, lasted just under two hours during which the legal teams headed by Attorney General Silvio Camilleri on behalf of the government and Donatella Recchia for the Commission submitted their arguments.
The hearing was held following the presentation of written submissions from the prosecution and defence teams last week.
Contacted yesterday, Attorney General Silvio Camilleri refused to comment stating he was bound by secrecy as the court's procedures were held in camera.
Malta's team of lawyers included a Belgian lawyer specialising in the environment and in the Birds Directive.
Yesterday's hearing dealt only with the Commission's request for the court to issue temporary measures so that no spring hunting will be allowed until a decision on the original case against the government is concluded.
The original case, registered as 76/08 last February and which has not started being heard yet, is expected to take two years to be concluded.
The Commission is asking the court to declare that, by failing to meet the conditions set out in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Directive for the hunting of quail and turtle dove during spring migration.
Since accession to EU on May 1, 2004, the Maltese authorities have exercised the right to apply the derogation in Article 9(1) of the directive for the hunting of quail and turtle dove during the spring migration period when they return to their nesting ground.
The question raised in the proceedings is whether the Maltese authorities fall within the scope of the derogation in Article 9 (1) which would permit the hunting of the species in question in spring on the basis that there is no other satisfactory solution.
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Cedric Busuttil
Apr 4th 2008, 06:27
Deep down in my heart, I don't want spring hunting to be abolished! I too am an x-hunter and have practiced this sport from the little age of 6 when I followed my father. When bigger I did it on my own! Unfortunately I had to stop.
Why? Very simple!!! I had to stop because of other hunters and their jealousy. Because of the hunters that claimed that it is them who cultivate land and trees. The truth is that some hunters destroy their neighbours land and trees during nights so they will have the best place where to shoot!!! I remember once, someone destroyed 200 trees of mine and blew up my resting room!! just because of jelaousy. This is why I stopped practicing!
Hunters!! all of you!! If you want to win future wars get united - and not only on FKNK meetings. This is the only way to gain more sympathy.
Finally, I wish you to continue practing during Spring. Hope to get a positive answer from EU BUT!!! stop doing what I just described AND ALL OF YOU KNOW WHAT I WROTE IS TRUE!!
Vince Borg
Apr 4th 2008, 00:42
I find it rather strange that the European Commission were so keen to follow this case against the Maltese hunting lobby, while at the same time it allows bull fighting in Spain, blatant abuse of the same animal in village fiestas again in Spain, fox hunting in Britain, spring hunting in several other European zones, etc.etc. Though I am not a hunter myself I think, as a Maltese citizen, that it's worrying that the European Commission wants to use an iron fist with such a small country like Malta but at the same time it has no guts to tackle the larger members on the very same issues.
If the European Commission wins this case it will set a precedent on other issues that are not necessarily related to hunting, in which we will be shown the iron fist while our larger counterparts are ignored.
ANDY FRIBBENS
Apr 3rd 2008, 22:40
I spend lots of time in Malta and had seen Hunters, hunting out side the Hunting season many times. I just demand they obey the rules for once. Question who destroyed the Tree up at the Red Tower ? Its about doing what you are told and agreement can be reached
Andrew Gatt
Apr 3rd 2008, 19:19
Birdlovers, the decision is whether to respect an agreement or not, and to appreciate progress or not. Spring hunting has been reduced to just 2 (from 32) species of prolific game birds. Spring hunting was guaranteed IN WRITING by Government pre-EU referendum. Spring hunting (and Autumn hunting) illegalities and poaching have been greatly, greatly reduced. Spring hunting seasons have been shortened.
But no - it;s never enough, is it? All or nothing is the motto....the few dozen active birdwatchers want to dictate matters to 11,000 individuals who have practiced this tradition for centuries. Demand this, demand that, demand demand demand. Ever heard of compromises? Haven't hunters conceded enough? Hasen't this whole sorry mess been instigated by slick propoganda, misinterpretations, misinformation and outright untruths? Give us a break please - and spare us from your insensitive comments.
Edmund Farrugia
Apr 3rd 2008, 19:13
The way I see is that either the whole of Europe abolish spring hunting or else let us be their equals. No more nor else, even though I am against hunting as a whole.
D. Caruana
Apr 3rd 2008, 17:04
Dear Corey Attard,
In school they used to teach us not to count our chickens before they hatch!!!!
Corey Attard
Apr 3rd 2008, 15:42
Hunters, the decision is no hunting in spring.no...no.Do you need to go to school to figure this out.
J. Borg
Apr 3rd 2008, 12:40
Can we at least know the aggregate (direct financial) cost of this 'defence' - of hunters and politicians' credibility?