After more than a year and a half of argumentation at Europe’s highest legal institution, and many more years of uncertainty and bitter controversy, the European Court of Justice yesterday put an end to the practice of spring hunting in Malta.

The European Commission had brought Malta before the European Court of Justice in February 2008 over its contention that Malta had illegally opened the spring hunting season for the four years including and following its EU accession in 2004.

In the ruling handed down yesterday, the ECJ agreed with much of Malta’s reasoning for the continuation of the spring hunting season, but the argument that the numbers of birds hunted in spring was heavily disproportionate to autumn’s numbers, was, at the end of the day, the downfall of Malta’s case.

The number of birds killed, the Commission argued, must be compared with the total annual mortality rate. In fact, yesterday’s ruling noted three times more quail are hunted in spring than in autumn (15,000 birds killed in spring) and eight times higher with respect to turtledoves (32,000 birds killed).

The court agreed that the numbers of Malta’s two legally hunted bird species - turtledove and quail - were “inconsiderable” in the autumn, and that they migrated over the islands only during a limited period and over the limited area, Malta’s western cliffs, in autumn as opposed to the more widespread spring migration.

Moreover, the ECJ found that no documents had been presented to the court that evidenced any sort of agreement between Malta and the European Union over the retention of spring hunting in Malta following the country’s EU accession.

The Commission had also rejected Malta’s argument that it “failed to have regard to the legitimate expectations which it engendered during the accession negotiations with regard to the ability of the Republic of Malta to authorise spring hunting”, and noted that it “gave no undertaking to that effect to that member state”.

The assurances the government had given hunters over the retention of spring hunting in the lead up to Malta’s EU referendum, coupled with the fact that the commission claims it knew nothing of any such agreement, has been one of the hunters’ recurring and main bones of contention.

Hunters are, however, seeing a slim ray of hope in that the ruling was “open ended” to a certain extent and that there was still a possibility for Malta to apply for a derogation from the directive in the future (see story below).

In its ruling, the ECJ found that the approximate two-month spring hunting season, during which the species are returning to their rearing grounds, results in mortality rates far superior to those in autumn and that they comprise the bulk of Malta’s hunting activity.

The numbers, the court ruled yesterday, meant the extension of the allowable hunting season to spring “does not constitute an adequate solution that is strictly proportionate to the directive’s objective of conservation of the species”.

Apart from that, the court has agreed with much of Malta’s argumentation.

In its ruling, the ECJ found it “apparent” from arguments, documentation and annual reports presented, that “in the autumn seasons of the years in question [2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007], hunters were able to capture only an inconsiderable number of birds”.

Nor, the court observed, has the European Commission disputed that during the autumn season the two species only migrate over “a restricted part of the territory” and that they do so for a limited period between the end of August and September.

While the commission had argued that although the two species migrate in autumn over only a small part of the island, those areas are nevertheless still accessible to hunters.

Malta, on the other hand, argued that 80 per cent of Maltese hunters hunt from their own land and that a total prohibition from spring hunting would mean they would not be able to hunt at all, unless their land was located near the western cliff’s autumn migratory route, given the limited overfly area in autumn.

In its argumentation, the commission contended that autumn hunting conditions could be improved by habitat management measures.

Moreover, the court also agreed with Malta that the population of the two species was not below a satisfactory level and that they are listed in the ‘least concern’ category on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

The court found that hunting in autumn was not a suitable alternative to the much more bountiful spring. It’s judgement stated that in principle and within the context of Malta’s very specific conditions, “hunting...during the autumn season cannot be regarded as constituting, in Malta, another satisfactory solution” and that the directive’s requirement of there being no other suitable solution, other than to hunt in spring, as being met.

“Even though only an inconsiderable number of the two species at issue are present in autumn and for a very limited period, and since hunting is not impossible in autumn, by authorising the opening of the spring hunting season for several weeks each year, from 2004 to 2007, the Republic of Malta has failed to comply with the conditions for a derogation...interpreted in the light of the principle of proportionality and, accordingly, has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive”.

Malta was also ordered to pay the costs associated with the legal proceedings.