I appreciate Noel Grima’s attempt to inform the public about the possibilities of fines that Malta could incur if condemned by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding hunting in Spring. He is right in stating that the example I quoted regarding fishing quotas in France was judged on the basis of Article 228 of the EC and not on Article 226. He runs the risk, however, of misleading the Maltese and Gozitan taxpayers by making them believe that Malta will not be liable to fines.
Why do I say this? Because there are precedents whereby the European Commission is seeking penalties from countries such as Portugal and Greece, by asking for a fine from both the day of the Article 228 judgement and another fine from the day of the delivery of the Article 226 judgment, that preceded the 228 one.
Both Portugal and Greece, for example, had tried to use the Maltese government’s tactics. Being judged on the basis of Article 226 by the ECJ, they reasoned that they could never be fined on the basis of this article. In two separate cases, both countries were eventually brought again before the court by the European Commission. Like the Maltese government, they reasoned that they would then immediately comply, once condemned in the first instance. But, in reality, it is not possible to comply immediately because it takes time to put into place the necessary administrative set up to implement EU legislation.
What happened to Portugal and Greece, therefore, was that both countries are being tried a second time, this time under Article 228. And if the European Commission wins the cases – which it is likely to do – and the European Court of Justice agrees to the demands of the Commission, Portugal will pay a daily fine of e5,280 from the date of the 2005 sentence till 9 October 2007 (the period of the Article 226 judgement) and an additional e37,400 a day fine from 2007 onwards. As for Greece, the fine requested is even heavier: e53, 611 a day fine from the date of the 2005 sentence till 2007 (the period of the Article 226 judgement) plus a lump sum payment to the Commission, the amount of which is calculated by multiplying a daily amount by the number of days over which the failure to fulfil obligations continues, running from the date of delivery of the judgement, etc.
As such, of course, this is not the same as fining for the period before the first judgement. However, taking into account the attitude of the Maltese government and the lack of preparation of adequate measures in order to be able to comply with the 226 judgement when it comes, 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.
It is simply not enough just to make legislation conform to EU law. The member state must also ensure the effective implementation and application of the law regarding hunting in Spring. And Malta has done very
little so far in this respect.
It is also worth noting that the European Commission has recently said that when they decide to use the procedure under Article 228, they will in future do so within a much shorter period of time than we have so far been accustomed to.
Having regard to the high profile of the Malta Spring hunting case, which has attracted the attention of many in Europe, not to speak of the European Parliament’s involvement and the broad public disapproval in many member states and regions, the European Commission is not likely to hesitate when it comes to taking Malta speedily before the Court of Justice, under Article 228.
Therefore, Malta is likely to find itself in breach of EU law after the judgement under Article 226 and might very well find itself in court soon after, this time under article 228, with the risk of losing its case again.
In this eventuality, the Commission would certainly act as it did in the two cases quoted above and ask for a fine both in order to force Malta to compliance and in order to sanction the past infringement.
As regards the effect of events before the first judgement, delivered on the basis of Article 226 EC, this is likely to have a strong effect on the heftyness of the amounts of fines requested by the Commission and fixed by the Court of Justice.
Of course, there are other issues tied to the question of hunting in Spring. What about the free access of the
public to the little that is left of our countryside? Why should we find our paths barred and why is it nearly impossible to ever have access to the sea in the most beautiful parts of Malta? These are also serious collateral consequences of hunting in Spring.
Anyway, on the basis of recent experiences in the European Court of Justice, I believe it is incorrect of Noel Grima to state that the “Maltese government has been 100 per cent correct in its statements over fines, while AD has repeatedly misinformed”.
On the contrary, Alternattiva Demokratika should be lauded for putting the Maltese and Gozitan taxpayers on their guard.
[email protected]