From Mr M. Mifsud Bonnici.

For the benefit of your readers who might have been perturbed by Arnold Cassola’s incorrect assumptions about Malta being fined by the EU with respect to spring hunting, I am copying the exact text reproduced in the EU press release IP/08/153 dated 31 January 2008. This is the truthful EU position regarding Malta’s case.

Legal Process

Article 226 of the EC Treaty (the treaty establishing the European Community) gives the Commission powers to take legal action against a Member State that does not respect its obligations.

If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of EU law that warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a “Letter of Formal Notice” (first written warning) to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date, usually two months.

In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a “Reasoned Opinion” (second and final written warning) to the Member State. This clearly and definitively sets out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of EU law and calls upon the Member State to comply within a specified period, normally two months.

If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the European Court of Justice. Where the Court of Justice finds that the treaty has been infringed, the offending Member State is required to take the measures necessary to conform.

Article 228 of the Treaty gives the Commission power to act against a Member State that does not comply with a previous judgement of the European Court of Justice, again by issuing a first written warning (“Letter of Formal Notice”) and then a second and final written warning (“Reasoned Opinion”). The article then allows the Commission to ask the court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned.

In the case concerning spring hunting in Malta, proceedings are still at the Article 226 stage.

Cassola is quoting EU cases against Portugal and Greece that were found guilty under Article 226. Having ignored this judgement, they are now being tried under Article 228. If found guilty, these countries could eventually be fined for the period commencing from the Article 226 judgement. However, the Maltese government has already stated that it will abide by the Article 226 decision so Prof. Cassola is wrong to make such a comparison.

He writes that “both countries are being tried a second time, this time under Article 228. And if the European Commission wins the cases…”. This comment shows that his reasoning is completely off the mark as far as Malta is concerned because our country is being tried for the first time, and both Maltese political leaders are on record as saying they will abide by the ECJ decision. However here too he concludes that “Malta is not likely to comply for a good while with EU law (Birds and Habitats Directives). There is no genuine will on the part of the government, but only half-hearted attempts to give the impression of doing something”. These suppositions are what his scaremongering statements are being based on and as such can only be considered as pure speculation.

Since he certainly is aware of the true facts as we are, it is unworthy of a politician aspiring to sit on the benches of Malta’s parliament to persist in misrepresentation of the facts for the sake of political gain. But ultimately it just goes to show that the Green party is not bothered with the real facts as long as it can somehow twist them around to suit its extremist purposes.

Mark Mifsud Bonnici.

Secretary

Kaccaturi San Ubertu