On 26 May, the Council of the EU published a document on the latest developments in the inter-institutional negotiations and technical meetings on the proposal to revise Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law (see EUROPE 12854/17). This document will serve as a working basis for the meeting of the Council Working Party on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (COPEN) on Wednesday 31 May.
In this table, which EUROPE has obtained, the European Parliament gives its comments, expressed on 25 May, after reading the Commission’s compromise texts and the EU Council’s explanations, on the basis of the amendments tabled by MEPs (see EUROPE 13146/3). It is the result of discussions held during the first trilogue on 4 May (see EUROPE 13176/2) and the technical meetings on 10 and 11 May.
The MEPs called on the Commission to work on “reformulations or evaluations” of the proposed changes, notably to Article 2.1 on the definition of “environmental damage”, Article 3.b on the “illegal placing on the market or trade in” a product whose use is likely to “cause death or serious injury, damage to a person’s health or substantial damage” to the environment, and Article 3.j referring to radioactive materials. The European Parliament also states that it would be preferable for the three institutions to produce “brief justifications by their legal services” on these points.
The European Parliament also expressed its support for compromises on the possibility of extending the definition of ‘legal person’ to cover public bodies in the recitals. And with good reason, in its amendment to Article 2.1, the European Parliament proposed : “Legal persons are to be understood as not including public international organisations, States or public bodies exercising the authority of the State”. The Swedish Presidency of the Council considered that the proposal to deal with this issue in a recital could be accepted.
Similarly, the European Parliament reversed its position on article 3.1.m, which penalises “trade in specimens of species of wild fauna or flora”, “except in cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of such specimens”. Although MEPs initially wanted to delete the reference to “a negligible quantity”, they agreed to keep it, while including a clarification on this point in Annex C. On this point, the Presidency suggests “accepting the European Parliament’s proposal”.
While various agreements have been reached on the definitions, the European Parliament has explicitly stated its wish to discuss Article 3.1a at the political trilogue on 13 June, amending it to make “offences causing death or serious damage to health and the environment” more severely punishable.
To read the document: https://aeur.eu/f/74o (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry)