The Collegial Ordinance n. 00473/2020 of 25 September 2020 with respect to the precautionary hearing of 23 September 2020. Basically, the First Section of the Veneto TAR accepted - as a precautionary measure - only the suspension of the removal of pochard and lapwing; all the rest, both for the PFVR / VInca question and for the issues of levies for other species, was rejected. Below is an extract of the reasons for the decision:
Considered:
- that the complaints proposed with the first ground of appeal do not appear to be supported by sufficient elements of validity;
- that in fact art. 14, paragraph 7, of the law 11 February 1992, n. 157, does not impose an obligation to review the hunting fauna plan in time, and the applicants have not demonstrated in detail any evidence that it is not topical (on this point, see the Tar Marche judgment, 31 July 2020, no. 494);
- that in the Veneto Region the wildlife hunting plan, still effective because extended, has been subjected in its entirety to the impact assessment pursuant to article 5 of Presidential Decree no. 8;
- which therefore appears correct to believe that, as indicated in the note of the Ministry of the Environment prot. n. 13415 of 25 February 2020, the hunting calendar for the implementation of the wildlife hunting plan, should not in turn be subjected to an impact assessment;
- that the precautionary requirements relating only to the pre-opening whose period has already elapsed must be deemed to have ceased as a result of the monochrome decree no. 379 of 28 August 2020, with regard to the protection of the species of magpie, jay, hooded crow and black crow;
- that the precautionary needs for the protection of wild turtledove do not appear current as, as deduced by the Region, this species has now left our latitudes to winter in other countries;
- that the appeal does not appear to be devoid of substantiated elements and must in any case be the subject of greater investigation in the merit phase with regard to the complaints proposed with the second reason;
- that in fact, as indicated by the note of the Minister of the Environment no. 16169 of 9 July 2019 and the note of the European Commission ARES (2019) 3896523 of 19 June 2019 (see docs. 7 and 5 annexes to the appeal), in the absence of specific action plans, pursuant to art. 7 of the Birds Directive, the removal of the pochard and lapwing must be considered temporarily suspended (on this point, see Tar Toscana, Section I, 30 June 2020 no. 848; Tar Liguria, Section I, 17 October 2019, no. 780) ;
- that on this point it should be noted that the matter of wildlife management and protection, although attributed by art. 1 paragraph 3 of the law 11 February 1992, n. 157, the Regions appear to have to withdraw pursuant to art. 117, second paragraph, letter s), of the Constitution, with respect to the exclusive state competence in the matter of environmental and ecosystem protection, which comes into relief if a danger emerges for the conservation of some species;
- that moreover, as specified by the act of appearance in court of the Ministry of the Environment, the European Commission has clarified that hunting for "species in a bad state of conservation" must be suspended whatever the reason for this bad state, therefore also if not dependent on hunting itself;
- that, in the light of the clarifications of the Region about the effective operating procedures for the introduction of red partridge subjects within the wildlife hunting farms, such as to concretely avoid the risk of genetic pollution (the farms are located almost exclusively in the plains, and the killing takes place in the imminence of release), the fifth ground of appeal does not appear to be supported by sufficient elements of validity;
- that ultimately the precautionary request can be accepted only limited to the part in which the contested provision allows the hunting of the pochard and the lapwing;
- that the expenses of the present trial phase can be compensated;
The hearing on the merits has been set for next November 18, 2020.