Hunters call on ECJ to intervene

Hunters' association have called on the European Court of Justice to intervene for their right to a fair and equitable spring-hunting alternative to be upheld.

Short of this intervention, they said, they would take any action necessary to oppose any form of limitation going against the spirit of the Court’s September ruling.

The hunters' association said they would also increase efforts “to expose the underhand tactics” of entities that hindered the course of justice.

In a declaration, the Federation for Hunting & Conservation, St Hubert Hunters, the Għaqda Dilettanti Senter u Gabjun and the Moviment Kaċċaturi Nassaba Ambjentalisti said the September verdict permitted a derogation for spring hunting for all of Malta’s hunters and trappers.

But the European Commission’s objection to accept the already highly-restricted three-week derogatory period proposed by the Maltese government on the advice of its experts, made it impossible for all Maltese hunters and trappers to attain the satisfactory alternative justified by the ECJ.

The Commission, they said, had a responsibility to set aside its own a priori assumptions, and take action only after it received the government’s report for the period under derogation.

“Why is the Commission, therefore, granting Malta only four weeks from the end of the derogated period to submit a report, instead of the normal autumn deadline of the succeeding year?”

The hunters said the Commission did not scrutinise the 4000-odd derogations applied annually by the other member states. So why was it discriminating against Malta and could it specify the methods it was using to “monitor things on the ground” as it was reported to be doing, they asked.

Did it consider admissible, as evidence of monitoring, the inflammatory unproven facts, grossly inflated and totally biased reports of BirdLife Malta, designed towards a total hunting and trapping ban, the equally prejudiced and highly-exaggerated observations of the German-based abolitionist Committee Against Bird Slaughter, they asked.

They asked if it considered admissible as monitoring evidence, the alleged incidents of illegalities that appeared in “some local anti-hunting English-language newspapers, some of which were already proven to be false, and others that are still under police investigation”.