The European Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation. (FACE) issued a statement yesterday highlighting certain issues it has with the ECJ Advocate General's opinion on Finch trapping in Malta earlier this week.
Eleanor V. E. Sharpston, Advocate General (AG) at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, yesterday delivered her Opinion to the ECJ in the court case the European Commission initiated against Malta on the trapping of seven species of wild finches. The Opinion states that the present trapping arrangements do not respect Malta's obligations under EU law.
"With regard to the opinion of the EU Advocate General (AG) in the live-finch capturing (trapping) case (European Commission vs. Malta), FACE considers it necessary to make three general points on how the Birds Directive regulates hunting."
The AG's opinion states: "The purpose of the Wild Birds Directive is to protect birds - not to regulate hunting or trapping them. That simple truth needs to be borne in mind when striking the balance between environmental protection - the directive's primary aim - and the various other interests identified in Article 2 of the directive (notably those of an economic or recreational nature)".
FACE argued that cultural requirements are at the same level as ecological requirements in "Article 2 of the Birds Directive which reads that measures shall be taken to maintain populations or to adapt populations to a level 'which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements'".
Turning to derogations, FACE argues that while it is clear that Member States are not given a carte blanche to derogate, "it also needs to be pointed out that derogations are applied in a generalised manner in their territorial scope in many EU countries (e.g. Article 9(1)(a) for damage-causing species) and this justified and explicitly referred to the guidance on hunting under the Birds Directive (an average of 5000 derogations are applied per annum by EU Member States).
Turning to the concept of judicious Use, FACE quoted case law, and also said that "It goes without saying that traditional hunting practices in Europe, such as the live capture of finches, are very much part of the cultural and even ethnological heritage of the countries and regions where they continue to be practiced and transmitted from one generation to the next. Some of these practices are even recognised as Intangible Cultural Heritage under UNESCO (e.g. bird trapping in Austria)."
"Although FACE is happy to provide further clarity on relevant provisions of the Birds Directive, we do not feel that it is necessary, at this point, to comment on any specific points related to the (European Commission vs. Malta) live-finch capturing (trapping) case. The eventual outcome will be determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union. In the context of this case, the opinion of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU is regarded as an advisory opinion, which is non-binding on the Court, but would often influence its decision."
FACE is currently engaged in a detailed review of the AG's opinion with its Member, the Federation for Hunting and Conservation - Malta (FKNK).