The MITECO insists on ending hunting in almost all of Spain

0
597

S. C Updated: Save Send news by mail electrónicoTu name *

Your email *

email *

Government of Spain still firm in his intention to vote in favor of the amendment to regulation that affects the possession and use of lead in wetlands. A proposal unworkable, illegal, and that it will be difficult to implement in our country to be endowed with a great legal uncertainty.

The Ministry for the Ecological Transition (MITECO) and the Ministry of Health , bodies competent in the matter, intend to vote in favour of this regulation on 15 July without having consulted previously with the autonomous communities and without having explained the meaning of their vote to the million hunters in spain. But, why hunters are against the amendment of this regulation?

A total of 23 member States of the European Union already eliminated gradually, the shots of lead for hunting over wetlands. During the past five years has worked to develop a restriction across the EU about the shooting of lead on wetlands, an issue with which the hunters are in complete agreement.

According to this proposed regulation, the hunters they would have to prove your innocence if you have a cartridge of lead, even out of the wetlands when they return home after hunting.

The preamble of the EC proposal refers to “to catch hunters in the act”, which is not the appropriate language for a legislative proposal. Forgot the CE of the presumption of innocence, which is an extremely important tenet in the law of the EU and is considered as an expression of the rule of law in all member States?

In consequence, the EC proposal represents a interference important with the fundamental principles of EU law.

The definition of Ramsar includes all of the water regardless of its size, including an area of 1 m2 of temporary water (a puddle after rain, for example). This, combined with buffer zones of 100 metres, will create widespread confusion, and means that the definition of wetlands is a moving target depending on the climatic conditions.

More importantly, this approach is contrary to the EU law because it does not meet the requirements of the principle of legal certainty since it is not sufficiently detailed for practical application. For example, does not give the hunters a clear and precise understanding of their rights and obligations and enables national courts to ensure respect for those rights and obligations. Therefore, there will be multiple cases in which hunters and law enforcement officers do not know whether they fall inside or outside of the intended scope of the restriction.

transition Period

Without any justification, socio-economic, the EC is proposing a transition period to be much shorter (24 months) in comparison with the proposal of ECHA (36 months). The transition period should be at least 36 months after the socio-economic analysis of ECHA and of 60 months for countries that have no restrictions (Ireland, Slovenia, Malta, Poland, Romania).

it Is strange that there is no reference, explicit or otherwise, that the use of shots of lead per part of l the police and the military is outside of the scope of the EC proposal. This seems to be an oversight of the European Commission.

The c ríticas of the hunters towards the EC proposal not have been for political reasons, but because their proposals are technically deficient and legally defective. The Commission has had ample opportunities to remedy the wording is totally inappropriate and the ambiguity in its provisions.

The current proposal of the EC would contribute to the uncertainty and instability in legal widespread to the member States and the hunters of Europe. Therefore, the EC should propose a text that is both legal and understandable.