I principally hunt quail and have two dogs bred and trained for the purpose. I was assuming that the European Court of Justice ruling, which recognised my lack of a “satisfactory solution”, would have resulted in a just and equitable solution for me and the 80 per cent of hunters that do not have access to quail in autumn as argued by Malta in its defence of derogation.

Knowing that according to publicly available best scientific data the figures for the quail populations, according to the one per cent annual mortality rate, by far exceed the maximum figure of 5,000 quail allowed whenever a derogation is to be applied, how can such a limit expect to be justified? The same can be said for the number of turtle doves being suggested. Contrary to what the government’s legislation states and according to the same data, turtle dove figures are far less than those of quail. However, considering my main concern is the hunting of quail, I will base my argument accordingly.

The government is on record as having received approval from the European Commission on the framework legislation it is implementing which eventually is to be transposed into national law. Any such legislation is bound by a factor of “legal certainty” and this fact certainly conditioned the government to ignore any scientific data and legislate for a “pittance” as it was certain this would not be detrimental to its obligations. On the other hand the Commission is not obliged to comment on the numbers being proposed unless these are excessive and certainly could not but agree to such numbers “being within the court’s judgment”. This is how my right for a satisfactory solution has been sold by the government and eagerly bought by the Commission in what it accepts as being the one per cent annual mortality of the species.

Clearly the government never meant to exercise its right to defend my legal expectations since the Commission could never object to the pittance it proposed. However, if the government were not after derogating just to pacify some possible voters it might want to learn what other European hunters that do not need a derogation in spring are allowed to hunt as opposed to my meagre limits it so deceitfully proposed.

According to the Commission’s own publications the hunters of eight European states collectively hunt two to four million turtle doves and four million quail in autumn. Within the same publications, a survey carried out in Greece from its 270,000 hunters to establish the approximate hunted number of quail concludes that “the average take per gun per trip was four quail per gun with three per cent out of a sample of 3,000 hunters reaching the authorised limit of 12 quail per day.” Clearly with such bag counts none of the eight European states that hunt these species see the need to derogate in spring.

However ,in all its wisdom, Malta’s government negotiated a limit in autumn of two quail per hunter that would automatically preclude a derogation in spring.

Apart from records available to the government proving this maximum limit never been reached in autumn, its negotiations concluded that in order to attain a satisfactory solution in spring all 10,000 hunters are allowed a maximum collective bag of 5,000 which is further reduced by the formula it concocted to justify proportionality.

This year I am expected to satisfy my quail hunting instinct by sharing 2,500 quail between the 6,000 applicants for derogation. So if I were “unlucky” enough not to attain the quota of two in autumn I am expected to satisfy myself with 0.42 of a quail this spring. If whatever government negotiated or the Commission approved amounts to this nonsense it is opportune to ask for a clarification as to the provenance of such numbers. Failing this, as a European hunter having the same rights as any other I have no problem with declaring that my rights to a just and equitable solution have been sold to an entity that purports to uphold equality and justice yet conveniently agrees to something it knows to be incorrect.

Considering Malta’s government is content with what it negotiated, I expect the Commission to clarify its position considering that as a European citizen claiming an injustice I have a right to know how my limitations to a court declared “satisfactory solution” have been bartered.