Saturday, 26th April 2008
Brussels expects spring hunting to stop
The European Commission yesterday made it clear that, although the European Court of Justice (ECJ) did not agree to issue interim measures banning spring hunting in the 2009 season, it still expects the Maltese government not to allow hunting next spring.
A spokesman for the Commission yesterday told The Times that Thursday's court decision sets a precedent and spring hunting in Malta should not be allowed any longer.
"The decision of the ECJ is quite clear. Spring hunting should not be allowed until the final judgement on the original case instituted by the Commission against Malta is given. If the Commission sees that the Maltese government is planning to allow hunting in the spring of 2009, the Commission will decide on whether to apply once again for interim measures," he said.
During the oral hearing on the Commission's application, held at the ECJ on April 2, the Commission made it clear its application for interim measures should refer to the upcoming two spring seasons, in 2008 and 2009. The reasoning behind the Commission's demand was that the original court case against Malta over the issue is not expected to be concluded before another two years.
However, in its ruling, the court dismissed the Commission's plea on the 2009 season and only accepted to issue interim measures for this season.
The ruling noted that "it is apparent that the Commission's application for interim measures cannot be dismissed for lack of urgency as far as concerns the current year. With regard to 2009, on the other hand, urgency is not made out in the present application for interim measures".
With regard to 2009, "the application of interim measures is dismissed," the President of the ECJ ruled.
Although in technical terms the court's decision leaves a window of opportunity to Maltese hunters for the 2009 season, Brussels yesterday insisted the issue is now closed.
"We expect the Maltese authorities to follow this decision and not to allow spring hunting any longer," the spokesman insisted.
Contacted by The Times, a spokesman for the ECJ also confirmed that the Commission can technically re-apply for interim measures next year.
"The order applies only to 2008. The year 2009 is one year away and the main case may be resolved by then. However, if the case is not yet over, the Commission could always ask for further interim measures. The ECJ decision does not mean that spring hunting can definitely take place in 2009. The court only said that, right now, the 2009 season is not something which needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency," the spokesman said.
Meanwhile, speaking during yesterday's mid-day briefing in Brussels, the Commission's environment spokesman welcomed the ECJ's decision against Malta.
Speaking on behalf of Commissioner Stavros Dimas, who is on official business in China, Barbara Helfferich said the decision of the Court emphasises the importance of protecting the common natural heritage of the EU in preventing the hunting of birds during the spring period.
"The order applies to the spring period in 2008 but we consider that it sets a clear precedent in relation to spring hunting in subsequent years also in other member states."
The issue of interim measures is considered to be a very rare occasion within the EU's legal framework and Malta's case was only the third time in which this tool was used.
The legal action by the Commission followed a final written warning to Malta in October last year on the hunting of quails and turtle doves in spring.
According to the Commission, the hunting of these migratory birds takes place during their return from Africa to breeding grounds in Europe before they have had a chance to reproduce. The impact on bird numbers is therefore more significant than it would be in autumn or winter, after the breeding season.
The issue of a derogation for spring hunting was the subject of pre-accession discussions with Malta, with the Commission confirming that a derogation would be possible where the strict conditions set out in the Wild Birds Directive were met.
However, the scenario completely changed following Malta's accession as, in its most recent ruling on the issue of spring hunting, the European Court of Justice in a case against Finland (C-344/03) dated December 15, 2005, concluded that, in cases where birds were present at other periods, even where those numbers were smaller than in spring, another satisfactory solution was available and a derogation from the Birds Directive to permit spring hunting was not possible.
In that respect, the facts of the Finnish case were parallel to the situation in Malta, where the Commission believes that alternative solutions to spring hunting exist, in this case the possibility to hunt the two species in autumn.
In its final written warning in October last year, the Commission called on Malta not to permit spring hunting for this year. Responding last January, Malta did not commit to stopping spring hunting. As a result, in January 2008, the Commission referred the case to the European Court of Justice.
Given that the spring hunting season was imminent, the Commission also applied to the Court for interim measures, asking Malta not to allow spring hunting this year.
The main case, with regard to the principle of spring hunting in general, still has to be heard by the Court.
RSS
Comments
It is in a way unfortunate for the hunters that abide by the regulations that they will not be able to practice their hobby anymore. However, if they had controlled and reported their fellows who do NOT abide by said regulation, maybe their sport-of-a-lifetime would have been better defedable. As it is not only was there rabid shooting of anything that takes to the sky but also no control over the numbers of birds shot. Abroad hunting of any species is very strictly regulated so as not to endager any species. This control is simply not possible when people only try to gain their ends with no regard to the consequences. Well - here are the consequences!
The great majority of people do not regard hunting as something that they tolerate, let alone want. I think this has been shown quite clearly by now. That is simply a fact that has to be accepted by all parties involved.
A new phase in the story of Malta has begun where there is room for new hobbies like archery in practising grounds, clay pigeon shooting, etc. Hunters all over he globe use these kinds of facilities - join the fun without killing birds in the process.
Rather than shaming and calling names and using this issue for political reasons, one should make an effort to see the whole spring hunting saga in a logical manner:
1. PN Government made it clear in the agreed minutes with the EU prior to accession that it intends to use the derogation from the Birds Directive to allow hunting in spring on turtle doves and quails.
2. The majority of Maltese People voted for EU Accession, knowing the PN Government’s position on hunting and trapping.
3. PN Government kept its word and opened the Spring Hunting Season in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.
4. PN Government did not open the Spring Hunting Season in 2008 because of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
5. PN Government is still fighting this cause in front of the ECJ arguing that it has a right to apply the derogation from the Birds Directive to allow hunting in spring on turtle doves and quails as it did in the 2004-2007 period (although from the wording of the recent ECJ sentence I seriously doubt whether the Maltese Government stands a chance in winning this case).
6. One has to also bear in mind that the ECJ has recently ruled against Finland in a judgement that seems to compromise Malta’s case.
So it is evident that the PN Government kept its word and was forced not to open the Spring Hunting Season this year because of:
- The European Commission’s case in front of the ECJ;
- The ECJ ruling;
- The illegal hunting by a small group of hunters that has continuously drawn the attention on Malta;
- The Green Lobby in Malta.
In the last general elections, although the PN and MLP had exactly the same position on hunting (so we would be in exactly the same position had MLP been elected), it is evident that the hunting lobbied overwhelmingly supported the MLP. One high official in the hunting lobby even urged hunters to vote MLP. In fact, one can see the strongest swing against the PN in those districts with the highest percentage of hunters, and hunters did not abstain.
So while I really feel sad for bona fede hunters and trappers, my conclusions differ from many of the comments below.
Malta has lost part of its identity...
It was not lost, it has been taken away, stolen, by foreigners.
Who knows what's next? Everything is expected, and we have to abide by their laws. They will threaten us, and we'll have to do as we're told...or else? Fines. Blackmail.
Money from the EU is important, but how important? Will we still obey them blindly on every occasion? Are we afraid? Are they always right? Have we become little creatures afraid to be stepped onto or gobbled up? It seems we have no say whatsoever.
I guess Dr Sant was right after all, full membership is not so healthy!
I am not a hunter, neither an orthodox environmentalist, i am tolerant, but what i do not want to be is cheated by those who the people elect on false pretences.
You will be cheated again and again in one way or another by these same people who change only their approach but not their aims.
IN THE LAST ELECTIONS EVERY ONE KNEW THIER WILL BE NO SPRING HUNTING YET THE PN STILL WON
THIS IS CLEAR PROOF THAT NOT ONLY THE HUNTERS DID NOT GET THEIR SO CALLED REVENGE THE PEOPLE ARE IN FAVOUR OF NO SPRING HUNTING THAT IS WHY WE VOTED PN
THEY TOOK ALL HUNTERS AND TRAPPERS FOR A RIDE.
SHAME ON EDDIE FENECH ADAMI AND DR. GONZI.