Information on correspondent submitting the communication




Дата канвертавання18.04.2016
Памер19.08 Kb.



  1. Information on correspondent submitting the communication


Full name of submitting organization or person(s):

Permanent address:

Address for correspondence on this matter, if different from permanent address:

Telephone: Fax: E-mail:
Søren Wium-Andersen

Ådalen 15, DK-3400 Hillerød, Denmark

Tel: + 45 48 26 75 15; Mob: +45 51 78 91 15

Mail: wium-a@get2net.dk



  1. State concerned


Name of the State concerned by the communication:
Denmark

  1. Facts of the communication


Detail the facts and circumstances of the alleged non-compliance. Include all matters of relevance to the assessment and consideration of your communication. Explain how you consider that the facts and circumstances described represent a breach of the provisions the Convention:
EU’s directive on “the conservation of wild birds” is not fully implemented in Danish law.
With the present letter I will appreciate if the Compliance Committee could investigate if the laws and regulations concerning hunting and regulations of wild birds in Denmark are in compliance with the EU’s Council directive of 2nd April 1979 on “the conservation of wild birds”, CONSLEG: 1979L0409, ref. number 1.
In the spring 2006 Hillerød municipality implemented an extensive regulation of the Rook Corvus frugilegus on a number of localities owned by the municipality. One of the Rooks colonies are situated on a water purification plant, one at a garbage station others close to town dwellings. Hillerød Municipality had the intentions to cull 1500 juvenile Rooks to reduce the problems connected to the vocal noise in relation to the breeding behaviour in the Rook colonies. In cooperation with the local branch of the Danish Forest and Nature Agency under the Danish Ministry of the Environment and Hillerød Municipality, a number of persons related to the municipality were allowed to cull the juvenile Rooks from May 1st until June 15th 2006.
A number of letters to the editors were published in the local newspapers but the municipality continued with the culling partly backed by the Danish Forest and Nature Agency who seems unwilling to take the implication of the EU directive on “the conservation of wild birds” into consideration.

IV. Nature of alleged non-compliance


Indicate whether the communication concerns a specific case of a person’s rights of access to information, public participation or access to justice being violated as a result of non-compliance or relates to a general failure to implement, or to implement correctly, (certain of) the provisions of the Convention by the Party concerned:
The Danish hunting law was signed in 1997 and carry the title: Bekendtgørelse af lov om jagt og vildtforvaltning. A footer to the title says: This law contains prescriptions, partly implementing the EU directives 79/409/EØF and 92/43/EØF. The footer does not specify which part of the directives is un-implemented.
But there seems to be a general failure to implement the EU’s directive on “the conservation of wild birds” in relation to culling of Rooks Corvus frugilegus.


V. Provisions of the Convention relevant for the communication


List as precisely as possible the provisions (articles, paragraphs, subparagraphs) of the Convention that the State is alleged to not comply with:
In EU’s Council directive of 2nd April 1979 on “the conservation of wild birds”, CONSLEG: 1979L0409, the Rook Corvus frugilegus is listed as an Annex II/2 species in Denmark. This implies that the Rook cannot be hunted in Denmark. Any culling of the species must follow Article 9 in the directive. Member states may derogate from the provisions of the directive articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 for the four reasons stated in Article 9, 1 a. The derogation must also be specific in relation to Article 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4.
None of the four reasons mentioned in the Article 9 have been fulfilled before the culling process started in Hillerød during the nesting season. The reasons for culling the juvenile Rooks in Denmark are normally that there are o“to many”.
In my opinion the culling of Rooks in Denmark is not following the practise as defined by the cases described in the publication: Guidance document on hunting under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. “The Birds Directive”, ref. number 2. I am especially referring to Case C 247/85 and Case C 159/99.
Hunting in Denmark is regulated by: ”Bekendtgørelse af lov om jagt og vildtforvaltning”, ref. number 3. According to § 37 in the law four reasons are stated for culling of animals. The detailed regulations are described in: “Bekendtgørelse om Vildtskader”, Regulations of game damage, ref. Number 4. According to § 8 in these regulations: “In colonies of Rooks nestlings may be culled outside the nest from May 1st until June 15th.”
The four reasons stated for culling the Rooks in the Danish law for hunting deviate with the four reasons stated in the EU’s Council directive of 2nd April 1979 on “the conservation of wild birds”, CONSLEG: 1979L0409. Article 9.1 and the Danish procedures concerning the other part of the article are not in compliance with the procedures now defined by a number of cases by the EU Court of Justice.
In total around 113.900 Rooks were culled in 2004, ref. number 5, in Denmark with the consent of the Danish Forest and Nature Agency based on the regulations in “Bekendtgørelse om Vildtskader”. Information on the culling after 2004 is not available at the moment.


VI. Use of domestic remedies or other international procedures


Indicate if any domestic procedures have been invoked to address the particular matter of non-compliance which is the subject of the communication and specify which procedures were used, when which claims were made and what the results were:
The non-compliance of the Danish law of hunting with EU directive on “the conservation of wild birds”, was reported to the local police. The police turned down the report with a reference to “Bekendtgørelse om Vildtskader” stating that the culling occurred “to secure danger for human health’s”.
This decision was appealed to the Public Prosecutor. The appeal was turned down. According to the prosecutor I did not have any right to appeal the case.
The non compliance was then reported to the “The Nature Protection Board of Appeal”. They informed me that they do not have any jurisdiction in relation to the implementations of EU directives.
The above mentioned papers are all in Danish and have not been included. They can be forwarded if needed.
Indicate if any other international procedures have been invoked to address the issue of non-compliance which is the subject of the communication and if so, provide details (as for domestic procedures):
N.A.

VII. Confidentiality


Unless you expressly request it, none of the information contained in your communication will be kept confidential. If you are concerned that you may be penalized, harassed or persecuted, you may request that information contained in your communication, including the information on your identity, be kept confidential. If you request any information to be kept confidential, you are invited to clearly indicate which. You may also elaborate on why you wish it to be kept confidential, though this is entirely optional.
N.A.

VIII. Supporting documentation (copies, not originals)


    • Relevant national legislation, highlighting the most relevant provisions.

    • Decisions/results of other procedures.

    • Any other documentation substantiating the information provided under VII.

    • Relevant pieces of correspondence with the authorities.


Avoid including extraneous or superfluous documentation and, if it is necessary to include bulky documentation, endeavour to highlight the parts which are essential to the case.


  1. EU’s Council directive of 2nd April 1979 on “the conservation of wild birds”, CONSLEG: 1979L0409.

  2. Guidance document on hunting under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. “The Birds Directive”.

  3. Bekendtgørelse af lov om jagt og vildtforvaltning, in Danish only.

  4. Bekendtgørelse om Vildtskader, in Danish only.

  5. Game statistic, Vildtudbytte statistik.



XI. Summary


Attach a two to three-page summary of all the relevant facts of your communication.
More than 2.9 millions Rooks Corvus frugilegus have been culled in Denmark since the EU’s Council directive on “the conservation of wild birds” was issued in 1979. The Danish culling of the birds is not in compliance with the directive and the procedures now defined by the EU court of Justice. Denmark needs to change its law on hunting and secure compliance with the directive on “the conservation of wild birds” from 1979.

X. Signature


The communication should be signed and dated. If the communication is submitted by an organization, a person authorized to sign on behalf of that organization must sign it.
December 3, 2006
Søren Wium-Andersen

Signed electronically



If a personal signed paper copy is needed please let me know
Yours sincerely
Søren Wium-Andersen
Aadalen 15, DK- 3400 Hilleroed, Denmark
+45 48 26 75 15, mob: +45 51 78 91 15
wium-a@get2net.dk



База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка