Valletta (The Brussels Morning Newspaper) – BirdLife Malta criticizes Minister Camilleri for misleading the EU, demanding accountability and urging the government to restore Malta’s tarnished reputation.
NGO BirdLife Malta’s CEO Mark Sultana and President Darryl Grima wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Robert Abela, blaming Gozo and Planning Minister Clint Camilleri of ‘playing around to fool’ the European Commission on the country’s ‘scientific’ finch tangling derogation.
What does Birdlife Malta demand from the government?
The organisation published the letter on Independence Day, a few days after the ruling by the European Court of Justice on Malta’s ‘scientific’ finch trapping derogation, whereby Malta failed the court case and was discovered, for the third time (2009, 2018, 2024) as not fulfilling its responsibilities as an EU Member State towards the EU Birds Directive.
Birdlife stated that the sentence proved it right in saying in all available forums and platforms, including the media, that this derogation was “nothing but an ill-conceived smokescreen, and that nothing of it, was scientific or bearing a conservation value. We have been the ones that served our country with the right advice. Once again, we have been vindicated by the European Court of Justice.”
“We genuinely believe that you might have adopted a position to fully trust Minister Camilleri with the design and implementation of this derogation. With trust, however, comes also accountability. It is high time to call a spade a spade and declare that Malta cannot keep on toying around with farcical ploys to try and fool the European Commission or the European Court of Justice with similar derogations,” Birdlife stated.
It persisted that the finch trapping derogation has failed twice, and the belatedly one, disguised as scientific research, fooled no one from day one. Birdlife also expressed it witnessed Camilleri endeavour to derail the course of justice of the derogation by vetoing legislation, only to re-issue the same derogation a few days later.
How can Malta restore its reputation in Europe?
It stated that this was a move that the Court had witnessed through, despite the Minister’s attempt at cheating the course of justice that somehow a new derogation was coined up after the beginning of the initial infringement procedure. “Malta now needs to make sure that we don’t harm our reputation even further, since breaching such a clear sentence, would also question our country’s position towards the rule of law,” Birdlife stated, adding that this is a serious issue that needs a strong decision of high-level leadership.
It continued that opposite to what Minister Camilleri has already declared, the ECJ ruling did not just find only one fault in Malta’s derogation, directing to clause 70 of the sentence in which the Court upheld the EU Commission’s claim that Malta fell to state reasons for applying this derogation in the lack of other satisfactory solutions. “Having no other satisfactory solution is the very basis for justifying the application of a derogation under Article 9 of the Birds Directive, and it is clear that in the case of the finch derogation, this could not be proven over the four years this derogation has been applied,” Birdlife stated.
