The only parallel between the spring hunting court instituted by the European Commission against Malta and the Aaland islands case, against Finland, is that in the pre-accession period both countries were promised that their traditional spring hunting would continue, the FKNK said.

It added that in the post-accession period both countries’ governments and the EU reneged on their guarantees.

The hunting organisation said in a statement that the contention was that the two cases were not just being compared but paralleled.

The FKNK said that in 2003 the Malta/EU Information Centre made an unequivocal stand in printed fact sheets and flyers sent to each hunter’s and trapper’s household, to explain how their traditional passions would be safeguarded on EU membership.

MIC deputy head Edward Demicoli, now a PN MEP candidate, was on the forefront to convey this message to hunters and trappers.

The irony of the situation, FKNK said, was that in his campaign launch, Mr Demicoli publicly stated that he would “serve” Malta by making sure that the Maltese socio-cultural traditions of spring hunting and trapping would remain banned from the Maltese islands.

Spring hunting and trapping were banned for the first time in Malta’s history by a ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Communities for the spring of 2008. A final decision for the 2004 to 2006 is pending. The FKNK said that the excuse being used by Mr Demicoli and others was the “Finland Case Parallel”.

Malta’s case, the FKNK said, had no parallel with Aaland’s. Malta was not contesting spring hunting of seven species, but of two and, unlike the Aaland birds, Malta’s two species were widespread and prolific, with European populations reaching up to a combined total of approximately 28,000,000 specimens.

These two species are both listed under the taxon “Least Concern” on the Red Data list of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Moreover, the nature of Malta’s topography was completely different from that of Aaland.