The Constitutional Court still has to announce the date when objections to the referendum to abolish spring hunting will be considered, according to the coalition proposing a referendum.

Meanwhile, the Coalition for the Abolition of Spring Hunting has reaffirmed its position that the proposed referendum does not conflict with EU treaty obligations.

It is a position supported by the government in its submission to the court in response to the hunting lobby’s objections.

In its reply filed earlier this month, the government dismissed hunters’ objections filed in court by lawyer Kathleen Grima, who works for the firm Emmanuel Mallia and Associates.

The government’s stand was that the process followed by the Coalition for the Abolition of Spring Hunting was legal, based on the advice of the Attorney General.

It is disingenuous for the hunting lobby to attempt to confuse the Court

Romina Tolu, campaign coordinator for the coalition, said: “The legal representatives of the hunting organisations have tried to mislead by claiming the legislation that allows spring hunting is some sort of EU obligation.”

The legislation that permits spring hunting in Malta is an exception to EU rules and therefore not a treaty obligation, Ms Tolu added.

“The legislation that permits spring hunting, and which a successful referendum will abolish, actually goes against EU rules because hunting of birds on their spring migration is expressly forbidden by EU directives.

“It is highly disingenuous for the hunting lobby to attempt to confuse the Constitutional Court in this manner.”

The coalition said it looked forward to the Constitutional Court setting a date for the referendum.