Spring hunting and bird trapping are two controversial issues that pop up from time to time.

There are passionate people on both sides.

Just this week, an opinion by the Advocate General in the case European Commission v Republic of Malta recommended to the European Court of Justice that it should find that Malta’s derogation allowing live capture of finches breaches the Birds Directive of the European Union.

It was an opinion that was welcomed by BirdLife, and one that was unwelcome for the government and trappers. The government was disappointed by the opinion and said that it remains committed to the cause and ready to re-open proceedings before the Court of Justice to continue defending the research derogation and the interests of hunters and trappers.

The Nationalist Party has not yet commented on the situation.

In its opinion, the Advocate General states that in 2014, Malta decided to use the derogation provided for under the Birds Directive in order to allow the trapping of seven species of wild finches as a recreational activity.

“In its judgment of 21 June 2018, Commission v Malta, the Court found that that recreational regime failed to meet the conditions for that derogation. Of particular relevance for the present application, the Court considered that the lack of knowledge about the provenance of the reference populations of birds migrating over Malta prevented the satisfaction of the ‘small numbers’ criterion set by the recreational derogation of the Birds Directive.” It notes that Malta then repealed the derogation regime, but then in October 2020, the country adopted the ‘Finches Project’. “It provides for the live-capturing of the same seven species of finches as was provided for by the legislation allowing recreational trapping, but the trapping proposed by the Finches Project is envisaged as part of a purported research project.”

The Commission believes that the project is only a ‘cover’ to enable the continuation of the same recreational activities of finches trapping, the opinion read.

In his conclusions, the Advocate General said that in light of all it examined and found, “I propose that the Court finds that Malta failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 8(1) of the Birds Directive, read in conjunction with Article 9(1) of that directive.”  

Now, of course, it will be up to the European Court of Justice to take its decision. However, if it does find that this project breached EU law, then once and for all Malta must stop with its perseverance with this practice.

If the court finds that the project was just a way to get around a previous court order, then that would be unacceptable and must not be repeated. Breaching EU law is not acceptable.