The curtailment of spring hunting on the Aaland islands of Finland was thus described in Time magazine: "Aaland voters voted 'yes' in their own referendum after being assured that their hunting rights would be preserved. Yet, the European Court of Justice later declared most spring hunting as illegal."

Both the Finnish government and the EU wanted Finland to join and because the "yes" vote of autonomous Aaland was crucial, the islanders were given an assurance before the pre-accession vote that they would retain their hunting rights. But after Aaland had voted in favour, the promise was retracted and eventually the EU took them to court to stop spring hunting.

The EU first acquiesces to pre-accession demands and then, in the post-accession stage when a member state proceeds to act in accordance with the so-called pre-accession Common Position, the EU, aware that the cat is now in the bag, suddenly decides that the so-called Common Position is no longer as common as it had pretended it was. At this point it starts making noises and dictating to a member state what it must do. When the member state ignores these noises and carries on regardless, the EU goes for its ultimate weapon. It submits its "case" to the European Court of Justice. In this manner the EU always gets its way. And Brussels has the brazen gall to call this deceit "justice".

The reason why spring hunting on Aaland - "a cultural practice for centuries" - was brought before the ECJ was "due to the EU directive on the protection of birds". It was admitted that spring hunting on these Finnish islands had been going on for hundreds of years and was still going on at the time of the court case.

It came under investigation not, as one might perhaps expect, because there was any cause for alarm due to decreasing bird numbers. There was no cause for concern in that respect. Centuries of hunting had had little effect. No, the reason was that Brussels had spoken: there was "the EU directive on the protection of birds". In short, the EU Birds Directive has been elevated on high and is considered more important than the rights of a handful of non-entities whose vote is no longer needed. The unfortunate hunters of Aaland had to bow to the diktat of Brussels and watch their centuries-old tradition, culture and way of life destroyed by a stroke of a pen.

The deceitful tactics used against Aaland are now being directed against our country. Malta argues that the two species hunted in spring - the turtle dove and the quail - are entered on the IUCN Red Data list under the category "Least Concern". Malta argues that their European populations alone run into several millions and that Malta's spring hunting accounts for an infinitesimal percentage of the total. Malta argues that spring is, since time immemorial, the main hunting season for these two species. The Maltese government had made this clear to the EU in its pre-accession negotiations and it formed part and parcel of the so-called Common Position.

Malta argues that the majority of hunters have no chance of shooting a turtle dove in autumn and that, consequently, autumn hunting of the turtle dove is not "a satisfactory solution".

The hunters argue that they were promised in writing by the Prime Minister (now President) of the Republic of Malta that spring hunting would be retained. The assurances of the Prime Minister were repeated verbatim in writing by the Malta-EU Information Centre.

The Maltese argue that the EU should live up to its responsibility to safeguard the right of minorities to engage in their lawful activities.

All these arguments are valid but equally they are of no account. What counts is that Brussels wants its pound of flesh: the Birds Directive is paramount.

In April 2008, the ECJ imposed an interim measure and prohibited the opening of the 2008 spring hunting season. It took no decision then in respect of 2009 as it deemed there was no urgency and it was still not in possession of the carnet de chasse results of 2007 on which best available data evidence it could decide. In the meantime, the Maltese government has forwarded this data.

From the same data the Federation for Hunting and Conservation - Malta compiled a scientific study on the turtle dove and quail seasons for 2007. The report vindicates its assertion that autumn hunting for these two species is not a "satisfactory solution" as an alternative to spring hunting.

The report, published last November, has also been distributed to all members of Parliament in Malta, the EU Commission and all other interested parties. A presentation of the report has also been made to the Malta Ornis committee.

In line with this report and with the data forwarded to the Commission, the Maltese government is expected to be consistent with its policy and open the 2009 spring hunting season as it had done in the post-accession years of 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. It is under renewed pressure from the FKNK and other hunting associations to honour its pre-accession guarantees to the hunters. If the matter goes to court again, the ECJ ought this time around to acknowledge that the law-abiding hunters of the Maltese islands do have a good case and deserve to be served with real and transparent justice. We shall soon see.

Mr Lia is a council member of the Federation for Hunting and Conservation - Malta.