A referendum to abolish spring hunting cannot be held because it breaches Malta’s EU Treaty obligations, hunters have told the Constitutional Court.
The hunting federation, FKNK, argued that the referendum sought to abolish a legal notice that implemented provisions of the Birds Directive, which Malta was obliged to transpose as a result of EU accession.
An abrogative referendum cannot be held to remove certain laws such as those that emanate from treaties the country has ratified.
“Removing the legal notice will mean that the balance between bird protection and recreational needs mandated by the Birds Directive and confirmed by the European Court of Justice is lost,” the federation argued.
The objection filed by lawyer Kathleen Grima is one of others listed in a 22-page submission made to the Constitutional Court last week asking it to reject the petition and stop the abrogative referendum.
According to the Referenda Act it is the Constitutional Court that will decide whether the referendum can be held after hearing submissions for and against.
Objections can only be made on very limited grounds concerning a point of law.
The Coalition to Abolish Spring Hunting collected more than 41,000 signatures calling for the holding of an abrogative referendum to strike out the 2010 legal notice that makes spring hunting possible.
The hunting federation noted that the Referenda Act prevented the holding of a referendum to abolish any legislation of a fiscal nature.
While acknowledging that the spring hunting legal notice was not “strictly” fiscal legislation, FKNK said that it had elements of a fiscal nature when it referred to the acquisition of a hunting licence.
Hunters insisted that the coalition’s drive to remove the whole legal notice also went against the spirit of the Referenda Act.
The federation argued that an abrogative referendum could be held to abolish “a part or parts” of a law but not to remove a law in its entirety.
The coalition’s proposal went against good public order, the federation added.
The legal challenge noted that according to law, the proponents of a referendum had to be more than five and not more than 10, identifiable and the first to sign the petition.
Hunters insisted the proponents could not be identified in the petition and so it was not possible to verify whether the legal condition was satisfied.
Removing the legal notice will mean the balance between bird protection and recreational needs mandated by the Birds Directive is lost
But the organisation also contested the vetting process taken by the Electoral Commission to uphold the petition. The law says that a petition to hold an abrogative referendum has to be signed by at least 10 per cent of eligible voters, which amounts to some 33,000 signatures.
Hunters objected to the Electoral Commission’s choice to base its decision on a sample amounting to 10 per cent of the signatures rather than use multiple samples.
The FKNK also questioned why the commission did not engage a calligraphy expert to determine whether signatures were authentic.
This opened up the probability that the number of collected signatures did not conform to the legal requirement, the federation added, urging the court not ignore this doubt.
Objections to the referendum were also filed by the St Hubert Hunters organisation.
Referendum proponents have a month to react to the objections and the court could be expected to deliver judgment by December.