European Court rules on spring hunting today

The final judgment on spring hunting is expected to be delivered by the European Court of Justice today, ending the case instituted against Malta last year by the European Commission.

The verdict will be final and irrevocable. No appeal can be made on ECJ decisions.

In its judgment, the court will give its interpretation on whether the Maltese government broke the EU treaties by allowing hunting in spring from 2004 to 2007.

Ahead of the decision, BirdLife International and the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU (FACE), which have as affiliates Birdlife Malta and the hunters' federation, issued a joint statement stressing the need to respect the court's decision.

The Office of the Prime Minister reacted, saying it always believed that the European Court was the best place where such issues could be decided.

In the case of a negative judgment, the government will be asked to come in line with EU provisions and pay for the expenses involved in the case. Malta will not have to pay any financial penalties if it complies with the judgment.

If the ECJ rules against Malta, spring hunting will become history and the tradition practised by thousands could only take place in autumn.

The burning hunting issue has been on the agenda since Malta applied to join the EU in 1990. The hunting lobby pressed the government to negotiate pro-hunting conditions, including hunting in spring, which is not normally permitted in the EU.

During the accession negotiations, the government informed the Commission of its intention to allow spring hunting by using a derogation under the Birds Directive. However, following a decision by the ECJ against Finland in a similar case in 2005, things changed. The Commission started infringement procedures against Malta as it deemed the island was no longer justified to derogate from the directive and allow spring hunting.

During a public hearing before the ECJ last May, Malta and the Commission presented their final arguments.

Malta, represented by Attorney General Silvio Camilleri, argued that the end of spring hunting "will practically" mean the end of hunting in Malta because the number of turtle doves and quail available in autumn, the alternative season, was so low that not even one bird per hunter was caught.

However, the Commission re-butted this saying figures submitted by Malta proved otherwise and there were enough birds to hunt in autumn. Peter Oliver, the Commission's main legal counsel, said that according to these figures, in autumn 2004, Maltese hunters caught 8,000 birds while in 2005 the figure went up to 10,000 turtle doves and quails.

Spring hunting saga timeline

May 2004: Malta's accession to the EU.

Spring 2005/06: The government uses derogation under Birds Directive and allows hunting.

June 2006: EU issues first formal notice, warning Malta spring hunting is not justified.

September 2006: Malta asks for more time to reply to EU warning. Concession granted.

January 2007: EU organises information meeting in Brussels for hunters and environmentalists. Situation remains unchanged.

February 2007: Malta again allows spring hunting despite EU warning.

March 2007: EU issues supplementary warning letter to Malta.

May 2007: The government decides to close spring hunt-ing 10 days before official closure due to massacre on protected birds. Brussels applauds Malta's decision but asks for a complete ban.

October 2007: Brussels issues reasoned opinion and final written warning to Malta.

December 2007: Malta's reply deemed not satisfactory by Brussels.

January 2008: European Commission decides to refer the issue to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

February 2008: Court case lodged in front of ECJ. Commission asks for the issue of urgent interim measures to stop the 2008 spring season from opening.

April 2008: European Court issues interim measures and orders Malta not to allow spring hunting in 2008. The government abides by decision.

May 2009: Public hearing of case against Malta at ECJ.

September 2009: Final ECJ ruling.