The compromise reached between the EU27 is far from the European Commission’s original ambition, but the Member States have managed to agree on their position on the directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law. EU Justice Ministers adopted their ‘general approach’ to this issue on 9 December in Brussels.
In June, the French Presidency of the EU Council had the Council adopt a partial approach to the text (see EUROPE 12968/11). This was limited to the definition of the offences included in the directive. The list extends to 20 actions such as illegal timber trafficking, recycling polluting ship components, the dumping and emission of materials or substances that can cause serious injury or death, and severe damage to water, air or soil quality.
The Member States’ ambassadors to the EU had agreed on the text a week earlier (see EUROPE 13074/16). They therefore concluded the long debate on the penalties for natural and legal persons committing infringements within the meaning of the directive.
However, this does not mark the end of discussions on the subject. The negotiations with the European Parliament, which could start in March or April, will not be easy, warned Czech Justice Minister Pavel Blažek, who chaired the debate, before wishing the future Swedish Presidency of the EU Council good luck.
A text that lacks ambition
During the public session on the subject, the European Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, expressed his concerns about the adopted text. “The compromise considerably reduces the applicability of the maximum 10-year prison sentence (foreseen by the Commission, editor’s note), since only intentional behaviour causing the death of a person will be covered [...] This means that only a very small part of environmental crimes will be or would be covered by the maximum 10-year sentence.
The EU Council provides for maximum penalties of five or three years depending on the offence. For Mr Reynders, this is “disproportionate for a number of cases involving, for example, the intoxication and serious illness of many people”.
As for penalties for legal entities, the Member States managed to agree on linking the amount of the fine to the worldwide turnover of the company concerned, but left open the possibility of an alternative based on a fixed amount: €24 or 40 million. This “may not be enough of a deterrent for powerful companies”, the EU Commissioner regretted.
Several countries, such as Italy and Austria, have argued for a percentage of turnover as the only basis for calculating the fine.
For Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland and Hungary, on the other hand, a fine linked to global turnover is unreasonable and does not take into account the different economic situations of the member countries.
See the general approach: https://aeur.eu/f/4lv (Original version in French by Léa Marchal)