Hunting in UK Law

In Commission v Finland C-344/03 [2005] ECR I-11033, it held that the derogation provisions should not be interpreted in such a way as to negate them. The phrase "no other satisfactory solution" was at issue. Finnish and Swedish legislation permitted hunting for certain duck species in the spring pursuant to the derogations in the previous Birds Directive.

In Commission v Republic of Malta [2009] C-76/08 ECR I-8213, the same derogation from the previous Birds Directive's permission to hunt species listed in Annex II was at issue — here over Malta's legislative permission for the hunting of two species during the protected period of the spring migratory return to breeding grounds. This derogation was from a specific restriction on an activity permitted but controlled as an exception to the general protection for wild birds.

The use of the derogation so as to permit hunting in spring still however had to be proportionate to the needs which justified it. Applying those considerations, the CJEU found that there was no satisfactory alternative; hunters could only capture "an inconsiderable number of birds" during the autumn season, the species visited only restricted areas, and the population of the species was satisfactory.

The content of this right has been described as "elusive" and does not lend itself to exhaustive definition. It is to protect the individual against intrusion by agents of the state, unless for good reason, into the private sphere within which individuals expect to be left alone to conduct their personal affairs and live their personal lives as they choose.

The other is the inviolability of a different kind of space, the personal and psychological space within which each individual develops his or her own sense of self and relationships with other people. Article 8 protects the private space, both physical and psychological, within which individuals can develop and relate to others around them.

One answer could be that article 11 should be read along with article 10. Article 9 protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It protects the freedom to meet and band together with others in order to share information and ideas and to give voice to them collectively. These articles, then, are designed to protect the freedom to share and express opinions, and to try to persuade others to one's point of view, which are essential political freedoms in any democracy.

As an abstract proposition, these two submissions, as I have said, have force. But the fact that in some circumstances there is no matter of complaint for some time after a seizure does not mean that on particular facts a complaint may not have arisen at the time of the seizure.