Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/19112
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-18T09:50:34Z
dc.date.available2017-05-18T09:50:34Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar//handle/123456789/19112
dc.descriptionLL.B.en_GB
dc.description.abstractThis research project presents an analytic and critical study of an assortment of case law under the Birds Directive, conferred before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Its main focus is Article 9 relating to derogations. Furthermore, reference is made to a number of cases in which Member States have permitted a derogation, stating that they have applied the necessary conditions; in most cases however, the Commission doesn't agree and takes the MS before the ECJ. The interviews with Sergei Golovkin and Joe Perici Calascione and the correspondence with Ion Codescu reveal that article 9 is well-drafted and that obtaining a derogation is a rather difficult endeavour. The first two experts in the area claim that the Birds Directive is not providing for new circumstances and that the notion that all Member States are placed under one article is definitely not working since each Member State is different. Had the directive been clear enough, there wouldn't have been a tonne of case law on derogations. Similarly, Ion Codescu also holds that despite being authorised to do so, the Commission has never submitted any penalties when the Member States failed to follow a judgment by the Court. When speaking in terms of the Maltese judgment against the Commission, it would seem that Malta is applying Article 9(1)(c) well at the moment. It is thus safe to say that a progression has been made seeing that the derogation had not been applied correctly in the past. At present, Spring Hunting is only allowed for two weeks, till noon and hungers can only catch up to two birds per day and four birds maximum throughout the whole season. Furthermore, the surveillance enforced by both the authorities and the NGOs is very strict and rigid. Despite all this, what seems to be somewhat problematic is the fact that the turtle dove is now considered as an endangered species, which has consequently caused the IUCN to call for a moratorium.en_GB
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessen_GB
dc.subjectEnvironmental law -- European Union countriesen_GB
dc.subjectCourt of Justice of the European Unionen_GB
dc.subjectBirds -- Conservation -- Law and legislation -- European Union countriesen_GB
dc.subjectNature conservation -- Law and legislation -- European Union countriesen_GB
dc.titleAppraisal of the case law of European Court of Justice on derogations relating to application of the Birds Directive : Court of Justice case law on the Birds Directive : a critical assessmenten_GB
dc.typebachelorThesisen_GB
dc.rights.holderThe copyright of this work belongs to the author(s)/publisher. The rights of this work are as defined by the appropriate Copyright Legislation or as modified by any successive legislation. Users may access this work and can make use of the information contained in accordance with the Copyright Legislation provided that the author must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the prior permission of the copyright holder.en_GB
dc.publisher.institutionUniversity of Maltaen_GB
dc.publisher.departmentFaculty of Laws. Department of Environmental & Resources Lawen_GB
dc.description.reviewedN/Aen_GB
dc.contributor.creatorSciberras, Glorianne
Appears in Collections:Dissertations - FacLaw - 2016
Dissertations - FacLawER - 2016

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
16LLB117.pdf
  Restricted Access
1.48 MBAdobe PDFView/Open Request a copy


Items in OAR@UM are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.