At the meeting of the Council of the EU’s Working Party on ‘Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters’ (COPEN) on 3 May 2023, Member State delegations discussed the European Parliament’s amendments to the revision of the Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law (2008/99/EC), which were adopted by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) on 21 March (see EUROPE 13146/3).
Following the meeting, the Swedish Presidency of the Council of the EU invited Member States that wished to do so to submit written comments. Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France and Slovenia gave their position on the European Parliament’s proposals in a document published on 11 May obtained by EUROPE.
In particular, MEPs call for other offences, such as the illegal depletion of resources or illegal fishing, to be taken into account.
France stated that it was opposed to the amendment to Article 3(1) introducing serious infringements relating to fisheries control and the sustainable management of fisheries resources. The French delegation stressed that these points “fall within the scope of an administrative police force different from that of the environmental police”. For its part, Slovenia, which considers the European Parliament’s proposal “too broad” with no “clear division” between administrative and criminal law, calls for “caution”, stating that “the current fisheries legal framework is being revised”.
On the European Parliament’s willingness, set out in Amendment 104 on Article 7(4), to fine companies found to be responsible for criminal environmental offences at 10% of average worldwide turnover over the previous three financial years (as opposed to the 5% set by the Commission), Belgium and Finland have expressed some reservations. “Providing only for a percentage-based mechanism, which not all Member States are used to (...), carries the risk that this important step towards a more effective targeting of legal persons at EU level will result in an unworkable provision”, the Belgian delegation argued, while Finland announced that it was completely “opposed” to it.
With regard to amendment 87, which adds a paragraph 4a to Article 5 and aims to define measures other than imprisonment, Belgium also showed itself to be reluctant. As this instrument provides for a legal framework in criminal matters, “the inclusion of a provision on the possibility to take national measures is not necessary and should be left to the Member States”, according to the Belgian delegation. The Czech Republic called for more clarity, referring to the clause as “redundant”.
The inter-institutional negotiations will start on 13 June.
To read the comments: https://aeur.eu/f/6yi (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry)