Negotiators from the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union reached agreement in trilogue, on Thursday 16 November on the revision of the directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
This agreement, which was already expected during the last political discussions in October (see EUROPE 13266/7), updates EU rules on environmental crimes and sanctions, thereby strengthening the protection of ecosystems, as welcomed by the rapporteur, Antonius Manders (EPP, Netherlands), in a press release: “This law will stand the test of time, and the list of offences will be kept up to date”.
This opinion was shared by the NGO European Environmental Bureau. However, its General Secretary, Patrick ten Brinks, said in a press release that the text was not yet “sufficient”.
The agreement extends the number of environmental offences from 9 to 18. Among the offences added to this list, which had crystallised debates during previous interinstitutional exchanges, are the marketing of products derived from imported deforestation, the discharge of polluting substances from ships and trade in mercury and fluorinated greenhouse gases.
However, MEPs regretted the EU Council’s refusal to consider the violation of GMO legislation.
More severe penalties are provided for so-called “qualified” offences, which result in the destruction of an ecosystem or habitat in a protected site, or significant damage to the quality of air, soil or water. The introduction of this concept was welcomed by Marie Toussaint (Greens/EFA, French), who sees it as a possible first step towards recognition of the “crime of ecocide”.
On the sensitive issue of penalties, individuals, including company representatives, responsible for environmental offences causing death may be sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, as requested by Parliament. Qualified offences would be punishable by 8 years in prison, while for other criminal offences, depending on factors such as the durability, severity or reversibility of the damage, the punishment would be a 5-year prison sentence.
Companies may face additional sanctions such as the withdrawal of authorisations, a ban on access to public funding or closure of the business. Member States will have the choice of imposing fines of up to 3% or 5% of the company’s annual worldwide turnover, or opting for fixed amounts of €24 million or €40 million, as wanted by the EU Council.
For Parliament, however, these penalties remain relatively low, and the choice of a fixed amount would, according to Ms Toussaint, lead to “absurd situations that do not take into account the financial reality of the company”.
The European Parliament also insisted that whistleblowers should receive support and that judicial staff should receive specialised regular training.
The agreement still has to be formally approved by the European Parliament and the EU Council. (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry)