Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-13-Speech-2-359"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070313.26.2-359"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I should like to thank Mr Libicki for giving me an opportunity to formulate the Commission's position on bird hunting in Malta. This is a question of compliance with Community law.
The directive on the conservation of wild birds clearly bans the hunting of migratory birds returning to their rearing grounds, as contained in Annex ΙΙ to the directive. As Mr Libicki also said, this spring hunting is the worst form of hunting.
Article 9 of the directive makes provision for the facility for derogation on the part of the Member States. Nonetheless, this facility only applies under exceptional circumstances, subject to compliance with the very strict criteria laid down in that article. In such cases, there is basically only a facility to derogate if there is no other satisfactory solution.
In 2004, the Maltese Government decided to exercise the right to apply a derogation for hunting quail and turtle doves during their spring migration. Nonetheless, according to information passed to the Commission by the Maltese authorities, the derogation in question does not appear to comply with the preconditions laid down in the Birds Directive. More importantly, the Maltese authorities were unable to substantiate that there was no other satisfactory solution or that spring hunting was being carried out under conditions of strict surveillance. For these reasons, the Commission came to the conclusion that the derogation for 2004 was in breach of Articles 7 and 9 of the Birds Directive. In July 2006, infringement proceedings were started in accordance with Article 226 of the Treaty and the Commission has not yet received an official response from the Maltese authorities.
The matter under discussion concerns the derogation for the year 2004. Nonetheless, the Commission knows that Malta allowed spring hunting during the following years also, in other words in 2005 and 2006, and it would appear that it allowed it during this year, in 2007. The continuation of spring hunting in all these years, in breach of legislation, constitutes a systematic case of poor application of the Birds Directive. For this reason, in order to extend the subject of the current infringement proceedings, we intend to send the Maltese authorities a supplementary warning letter about what is now standard practice on the part of the Maltese authorities over the years since 2004. The Commission decision is expected to be taken at its meeting on 21 March. If Malta does not comply with the Birds Directive, the Commission will pursue the legal proceedings provided for to the end. Despite this, we have not yet reached this stage and I still hope that the Maltese authorities will comply with Community legislation. Within the limits of its competence, the Commission is taking and will continue to take the necessary measures, so that Malta, like every other Member State, complies with the Birds Directive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples