Hunting in UK Law

For another species, this test was proved; to prohibit its shooting in spring on the grounds that it would be a satisfactory solution to shoot another species in spring or autumn would render the derogation at least partially nugatory since, even if the permitted level of spring hunting met the other requirements of the particular derogation, hunting that species would still be prohibited.

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 fact that there was no alternative satisfactory solution, as the CJEU found, did not mean however that hunting in spring was without limit; it was permitted only in so far as it was strictly necessary and provided that the other objectives of the Directive were not jeopardised. However, because the number of birds actually killed during the two month spring derogation was far higher than in the autumn season, the extent of the derogation did not meet the requirements of the Directive.

This may help to explain why the right is expressed as one to respect, as contrasted with the more categorical language used in other articles. 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.

(4) Sidabras was a very extreme case on its facts, since the statutory consequence of employment as KGB officers some years before was disbarment from employment in very many public and private employments, and the applicants complained of constant embarrassment. Effectively deprived of the ability to work, the applicants' ability to function as social beings was blighted. Such is not the lot of the HR claimants, to whom every employment is open save that of hunting wild mammals with dogs.

Article 8 protects the private space, both physical and psychological, within which individuals can develop and relate to others around them. But that falls some way short of protecting everything they might want to do even in that private space; and it certainly does not protect things that they can only do by leaving it and engaging in a very public gathering and activity.

"either alone or in community with others and in public or in private" This, it might be said, is separately provided for in article 11. 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.