Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-05-Speech-2-280"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060905.25.2-280"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The Birds Directive generally bans spring hunting. It only allows it when certain preconditions apply, the main one of which is that there are no satisfactory alternatives.
Until now, certain Member States which requested this sort of derogation were unable to prove that there were no satisfactory alternatives to hunting, for example in the autumn period.
The reason why hunting is banned in the spring period is because wild birds are migrating to their reproduction sites. They are birds that have survived the winter and numerous other hardships and are going to the sites where they reproduce. Consequently, there is a basic reason not to allow hunting of wild birds during this period.
More importantly, as far as Malta is concerned, we asked for information on birds hunted during the 2004 period from the Maltese Government as far back as the autumn of 2004. The Maltese authorities have sent us the relevant data for the 2004 spring hunting period.
We concluded from these data, which the Commission evaluated carefully in order to investigate if the grounds for a derogation really stood up, in other words that there was no satisfactory alternative hunting during other periods, that such preconditions applied. As a result, given that during the autumn period there is a significant number of quail and turtle doves which is not very different from the number of birds hunted during the spring period and taking account of the judgments of the European Court of Justice, we concluded that there is a satisfactory alternative and that the derogation is not therefore permissible.
Having established this, the Commission started legal proceedings against Malta in July 2006 for infringement of the Birds Directive on the grounds that it had permitted spring hunting of these two species.
I must say that similar infringement proceedings have also been set in motion against other Member States on the basis of the desired derogation for which the necessary preconditions are not met and that judgments have been returned, for example against Spain and Finland recently, on precisely these grounds."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples