With the European Commission awaiting a scientific justification for the government’s continued blessing of the spring hunting season, the setting of the methodology of such a study is in a “very advanced stage”, a Rural Affairs and Environment Ministry spokesperson informs The Malta Independent on Sunday.

The European Commission has expanded the infringement process against Malta it had started in July of last year. Its scope has been widened from what the EC first considered as a contravention of the Birds Directive in only 2004 to include all the years between and including 2004 and 2007 by means of a supplementary letter to the original infringement notice.

The EU has also given Malta one month in which to reply to charges that it has been disregarding the Birds Directive since accession. The one-month timeframe is half that usually allowed for responses from member States, and most likely takes into consideration the fact that Malta has still to reply to its original warning letter issued by the Commission.

Speaking to this newspaper, a ministry spokesperson confirmed, “The Ornis Committee, together with the co-ordinator of the study, are in a very advanced stage of finalising the appropriate methodology that will be applied for the scientific study of the Maltese Islands.”

The report, the ministry adds, will be finalised “once all the ground work and observations are carried out”, and that the timeframe of the study will be of two seasons.

The deadline to meet the Commission’s request for justification will elapse one month after Malta is formally notified of the expanded infringement. Although the Commission announced its intentions on Wednesday, the government has still to receive the formal notification.

The government had agreed with the Commission last year on the drawing up such a report. On 27 February, Environment Minister George Pullicino had said the government’s reply to the Commission would be based on the results of a study on bird migrations being carried out by “a reputable institution” that had been commissioned.

The government and the European Commission are drawing ever closer to a confrontation at the European Courts of Justice (ECJ) over the practice of spring hunting. A high-level delegation, including top personnel from DG Environment, is also expected to visit Malta on 28 and 29 March to discuss the sensitive issue with government officials and other interested parties.

This week, the government reiterated its position that it had acted in line with the “understandings” it had reached with the EU during Malta’s EU accession negotiations.

The government added that it “regrets that the Commission has decided to act as if the subject was never even discussed during these (accession) negotiations”.

The government also appears to have doubts over the legal precedent of a possible case against Malta in the European Court of Justice, explaining that while it is aware the Commission “considers itself constrained by the decision of the ECJ in Case 344/03 (Commission vs Finland), the facts of which do not necessarily find a parallel in Malta’s case, it recalls that, while the decision on which the court is relying was delivered on 15 December 2005, the Commission has initiated proceedings in relation to the derogation utilised by Malta for the period 1-22 May 2004”.

In expanding the timeframe of its infringement proceedings, the EC’s aim appears to be to provide a complete, documented picture of its complaint against Malta should the case end up before the ECJ. The development appears to be more a question of when rather than if, given the unrelenting and opposing standpoints adopted by the government and the Commission.

If Malta fails to reply to the Letter of Formal Notice, or its replies are unsatisfactory to the EC, the infringement proceedings will progress to the next level with the issuance of a Reasoned Opinion.

In the infringement process, a Reasoned Opinion is a final written warning and should clearly and definitively set out the reasons it believes there has been an infringement of EU law. It calls upon the member State to comply within a specified period, usually within two months.

If the member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may then decide to bring the case before the ECJ, which will decide on whether the Treaty has been infringed, and the offending member State required to take the measures necessary to conform.

If a member State still fails to comply with an ECJ judgement, the Commission is then permitted to impose financial penalties on the violating member State.