Sittings · Compare
What changed
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
Directive 2008/99/EC falls short on implementation, is not in line with the development of EU environmental law and current challenges, and it leaves out large parts of EU environmental law and environmental destruction.
According to the UNEP and INTERPOL, environmental crimes are rising and have become the fourth largest criminal sector in the world putting at risk the environment, the biodiversity and the climate. Environmental criminality is growing at a rate of between 5 % and 7 % per year and growing two to three times faster than the global economy, and is now as lucrative as illegal drug trafficking. This type of criminality deprives countries and populations from billions of euros of economic revenues annually, threatens fundamental rights, fuels insecurity and organized crime, and puts social structures at risk.
This leads to a situation where the criminal justice response does not represent the situation on the ground. Despite the Directive, the number of cross border investigations and convictions has not grown substantially. Environmental crime is the fourth largest criminal activity and it is growing.
The current Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law aims primarily at improving environmental protection by means of harmonized criminal legislation. However, many shortcomings and loopholes have been identified, i.e. limited scope, inadequacy of sanctions, low levels of fines; lack of implementation and cooperation between Member States; lack of access to justice; lack of statistical data; lack of specialized jurisdictions, etc.
Environmental crime is a threat to the European economy and businesses. It is estimated that the annual revenues only from the illicit waste market in the EU are between EUR 4 billion and EUR 15 billion. It creates an unlevel playing field, as companies can, by avoiding liability, create financial benefit. This needs to be tackled. It is also strongly linked to international organised crime.
The Rapporteur welcomes the proposal made by the European Commission, notably regarding the broadening of its scope; the strengthening of its provisions related to criminal sanctions and the provision of mechanisms to protect environmental defenders. However, the Rapporteur believes that further changes are needed to tackle environmental crime effectively.
Environmental crime is a threat to our environment and human health. It can affect the quality of air and water, contaminate land, harm wild species and damage or destroy natural habitats. All this can have an impact on human and planetary health.
The Rapporteur proposes the inclusion of general and autonomous definitions of environmental offenses. Despite the growing number of environmental offenses, a harmonized definition of environmental crimes does not yet exist either at the worldwide or at European and national level. Instead, the current system relies upon a list of secondary legislation, leaving out large parts of EU environmental law. Therefore, introducing autonomous crimes would enable criminal liability for serious cases of environmental harm and give rights to the nature.
Every person has the right to live in a healthy environment. According to the treaties, the European Union is committed to ensuring a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. According to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Union is committed to a high level of human health and environmental protection. According to the Aarhus Convention, the Union is committed to the right of every person to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being. This is not always the case in reality. Environmental criminal law is also part of the implementation of the human right to health and a good environment.
The rapporteur is also in favour of introducing a crime of ecocide, in order to criminalize the most serious crimes to the environment. The EU should defend the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to cover criminal acts that amount to ecocide. In parallel, the EU and its Member States should take the lead for its recognition. The introduction of a crime of ecocide in the remit of this Directive is of particular importance to preventing and prosecuting the most serious transnational environmental crimes in both EU and third countries, including developing countries. The definition used is the one developed by the Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide published in June 2021, a group of international criminal lawyers, environmental lawyers and legal scholars. It is the most comprehensive and recent definitional work available at the moment.
Currently, the threshold for investigations is too high, which leads to lower detection, prosecution and sanctioning. The rapporteur believes that this needs to be strengthened along with widening the scope of the Directive, especially conduct that is committed in the awareness that it causes or is likely to cause human rights violations or substantial damage to the environment. In its gravest form, this could be considered as an ecocide.
Given the high financial impact of environmental offenses, their potential link with other serious financial crimes, as well as their cross-border nature, the European Public prosecutor would be best placed to exert its competences on the serious environmental crimes with a cross-border dimension. The Rapporteur recommends that the Commission should assess the possibility to extend the mandate of the EPPO, to include serious environmental crimes.
We have already exceeded five out of nine planetary boundaries, safe limits for humanity. This threatens the livelihood of the planet and our health. Also, the gravity of biodiversity degradation and climate change cause an existential threat to the livelihood. Neglecting and not acting on these threats could constitute an ecocide.
To investigate and prosecute environmental crime effectively, the Rapporteur suggests the development of specialized jurisdictions at national level that would be able to effectively detect, investigate, and prosecute environmental crime, as well as to cooperate with other Member States authorities, including through the sharing of good practices and expertise. Such bodies should be provided with adequate financial and human resources.
The focus should be on prevention and precaution. The operators have a duty to be aware and conduct proper due diligence. The duty to be precautionary and to be aware needs to be part of the general responsibilities of operators and actors. And that is why the Directive must also tackle cases of “willful blindness”, meaning the deliberate avoidance of knowledge of facts. It should not be possible for persons to shield themselves from culpability by turning a blind eye to the situation. As in other fields of criminal legislation, the main principle of criminality and sanctions stems from the harm done.
Acknowledging the crucial role played by civil society and environmental defenders, the Rapporteur proposes strengthening their protection, including against Strategic lawsuits against public participation as well as their capacity to stand in legal proceedings. To facilitate reporting of crime, contact points should be created at EU and national level.
If an offence causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage or is serious, irreversible, or long-lasting, these should be considered aggravating circumstances, not mere criteria for a criminal offence. The extent of environmental harm should be considered in imposing a penalty rather than an element of the crime that must be proven to establish guilt. Furthermore, many offences are committed by simple negligence, and this should be sufficient for criminal liability. If not, we are raising the threshold for investigation.
Environmental crimes are very lucrative for perpetrators, the Rapporteur proposes several provisions in order to strengthen financial reparation obligation but also on confiscation of related assets.
The directive should also cover conduct that is unlawful even if it has the authorisation by a competent authority, if this authorisation is illegal, e.g., an environmental permit has been granted but is contrary to environmental laws.
In order to guarantee compensation to victims of environmental crimes and ensure effective ecological and environmental restoration, the Rapporteur proposes that Member States should establish a dedicated national fund to finance actions aimed at these purposes.
Harsher sanctions for lawbreakers and stronger enforcement are urgently needed. The sanctions need to be high enough to have the desired deterrence effect. The damage is often irreversible and permanent, and we need to create truly effective deterrence. The rapporteur fully supports the proposal to set sanctions for legal persons based on their total worldwide turnover (Article 7(4)), however, she proposes to increase the percentage to 15 to ensure truly effective deterrence.
As public authorities have a duty to set an example, there is no reason to exclude them from the obligations of this Directive, which is why the Rapporteur includes public authorities among the entities covered by the provisions of the Environmental Crime Directive.
Effective enforcement requires capacities, skills, knowledge and training along the full enforcement chain. This is why the rapporteur suggests and supports the efforts to raise awareness and the competencies of investigation, prosecution and judges, as well as the creation of specialised courts, public prosecutors and police force. Furthermore, due to the nature of environmental crime, the role of the European Public Prosecutor's Office should be strengthened in this regard, especially in cases where the Member States fail to act.
While the rapporteur fully supports the improvements in the data collection and statistics, she stresses the importance of transparency in this regard. The rapporteur proposes to make public the statistical data in addition to the consolidated reviews of the Member States.
ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
The following list is drawn up on a purely voluntary basis under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur. The rapporteur has received input from the following entities in the preparation of the draft report:
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on the Environment,Civil PublicLiberties, HealthJustice and FoodHome SafetyAffairs calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
Amendment 1
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 3
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13 ba (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 c (new)
Recital 4
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 d (new)
Recital 6
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Recital 58
Or. en
Justification
Sentencing guidelines will assist Member States in defining and applying penalties and sanctions that are dissuasive, effective and proportionate to different criminal behaviours. This will greatly facilitate the requested consistency and harmonisation on sanction types and levels across Member States, which is crucial for the effective implementation of the Directive. For sanctions to be truly effective and dissuasive, and to avoid the persistence of incentives for perpetrators, prosecuted offenders shouldn’t be allowed to profit from their crimes
Amendment 8
Proposal for a directive
Recital 611
Or. en
Justification
Including serious infringements of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing as an offence under Article 3(1) invalidates the need to address it in the recitals as no other offences have their own recitals.
Amendment 9
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 11 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Ecosystems and populations should also receive specific protection alongside individual wild animal and plant species and their habitats. The conservation status of particular species of wild fauna and flora can differ widely between regions. Healthy ecosystems are essential to the survival of wild species that depend on them and alterations of ecosystems may have profound impacts on populations of wild species, even within suitable habitats.
Amendment 10
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1012
Or. en
Justification
The directive must be “future proof” and then be promptly amended in order to cover new EU environmental law acquis
Amendment 11
Or. en
Justification
In certain cases, offenders will not have the ability to reinstate the environment, because of a lack of competence or because reinstatement is impossible. A more realistic solution is to include the cost of reinstatement of the environment. Sentencing guidelines will assist Member States in defining and applying penalties and sanctions that are dissuasive, effective and proportionate to different criminal behaviours.
Amendment 12
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1715
Or. en
Justification
The management of confiscated assets should also be mentioned in the Directive, with as overall guidelines the idea that proceeds from crimes should be used to repair damages caused, including compensating victims and financing measures aimed at combatting similar crimes, and to ensure that criminals do not retain any benefits or profits from the crime.
Amendment 13
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 16 a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2217
Or. en
Justification
Sentencing guidelines will assist Member States in defining and applying penalties and sanctions that are dissuasive, effective and proportionate to different criminal behaviours.
Amendment 15
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 17 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
The cross-border cooperation should be as strong as in the Directive to combat money laundering.
Amendment 16
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2317 ab (new)
Or. en
Justification
The global aspect of environmental crimes and cooperation with third countries to combat them should be addressed.
Amendment 17
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2419
Or. en
Justification
Organisations (legal persons) and in particular civil society organisations can be instrumental in preventing and exposing breaches. This Directive should recognise the key role organisations play in that matter and adopt provisions ensuring their protection in the spirit of the provisions protecting individuals under Directive (EU) 2019/1937of the European Parliament and of the Council
Amendment 18
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2523
Or. en
Justification
Organisations and in particular civil society organisations can be instrumental in preventing and exposing breaches. This Directive should recognise the key role organisations play in that matter and adopt provisions ensuring their protection in the spirit of the provisions protecting individuals under Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Amendment 19
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3024
Or. en
Justification
The Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is currently the European body best placed to combat environmental crimes. Extending the jurisdiction of the EPPO to environmental crimes was already supported by the European Parliament’s resolution of 20 May 2021 on the liability of companies for environmental damage. Since the establishment of the office, the EPPO’s large caseload and success has proven that it is in a unique position to use its powers and authority to also address cross-border environmental crimes.
Amendment 20
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3924 a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4024 ab (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Recital 24 c (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – paragraph 1
Recital 25
Or. en
Justification
Conduct is often carried out under an authorisation that is itself contrary to European Union or national law e.g., an environmental permit has been granted but is contrary to environmental laws. The definition of “unlawful” conduct should also include this situation. Such illegal authorisations are much more common than authorisations obtained fraudulently, by corruption, extortion or coercion. Moreover, such fraud, corruption, extortion, coercion is difficult to prove.
Amendment 24
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Recital 25 a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
Recital 26
Or. en
Justification
Advances in technology and connectivity across the world enable criminal offenders to carry out their activities online and it is crucial that this Directive also tackle environmental crimes when facilitated and/or taking place over the internet.
Amendment 26
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 b (new)
Recital 28
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 c (new)
Recital 29 a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point 5 d (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 51 e– (new)point b
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 51 f– (new)paragraph 1
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 51 ga (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – introductorypoint part1 b (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – point a1 c (new)
Or. en
Justification
Acoustic emissions involve the introduction of energy, including in the form of heat, noise or seismic vibrations into the aquatic environment. As underwater radiated noise (URN) may involve deleterious effects to marine life, and it is considered pollution according to several international bodies and agreements (including IWC, IUCN, UNCLOS, UNGA) and under Directive 2010/75/EU and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, this needs to be covered by the Directive.
Amendment 34
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – point b1 d (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – point c –1 laste sentence(new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – point e – introductory part3
Or. en
Justification
While EU legislation mostly refers to waste handling as collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste, there are certain pieces of EU waste legislation such as Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of life vehicles which refer specifically to the treatment of waste. Therefore, treatment should be added to the text.
Amendment 37
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – point e – point i4
Or. en
Justification
Minuscule quantities of some hazardous waste (i.e. fly ashes from incinerators) are so toxic that the definition of negligible quantity of Article 3(5) is not appropriate for hazardous waste.
Amendment 38
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e – point-1 ii(new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point ha
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point kb
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point kc a– (new)introductory part
Or. en
Justification
The serious infringements of the EU Fisheries Control System must constitute an environmental crime in line with the Commission’s commitment in the European Green Deal and the EU Biodiversity strategy of a zero-tolerance approach towards illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
Amendment 42
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point lc – paragraph 1
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point me – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
Annex C covers a range of species with a high conservation value and which can also be highly threatened, in particular rare endemic species. They deserve the same level of protection as the species covered under the two other Annexes, at least with regard to imports that are not carried out in accordance with the Wildlife Trade Regulations
Amendment 44
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point oe – point ii
Or. en
Justification
The Directive should reflect the whole spirit of Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC and therefore include both deterioration and disturbance.
Amendment 45
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point p – point iih
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point r a (new)i
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a– (new)point k
Or. en
Justification
Any act that negatively affects water, air, soil, habitats, climate, physical health or well-being of people and flora and fauna can constitute a criminal offense, whose severity should be considered against the harm done. Grave negligence or intention should serve as aggravating circumstances. The basic crime is considered according to the harm caused.
Amendment 48
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 b– point k a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 c– (new)point m
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 d– (new)point o
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 21 – point p – point ii
Or. en
Justification
Many offences are committed by simple negligence, and this should be sufficient for criminal liability. If not, we are adding another layer, burden of proof for investigating, prosecution and adjudicating authorities.
Amendment 52
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 31 – introductorypoint partr a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)2
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point e ba (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point e cb (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraphpoint 1e ac (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – introductorypoint parta
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraphpoint 1c ac (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – point d
Article 3 a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 34 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)1
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 34 – paragraph 5 – point d b (new)2
Or. en
Justification
Reference to organised crime and corruption should be made because the offences covered in this Article are often committed by organised crime groups and provide a hotbed for corruption, seriously affecting not just the ecosystem, but societies and undermining public confidence (see EMPACT 2022-2025 priorities which include a priority on environmental crime, with a focus on waste and wildlife trafficking).
Amendment 66
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraphparagraph 1 a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 45 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
The omission of this offence is not justified.
Amendment 68
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a3
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point b4
Or. en
Justification
The financial burden of a fine should be at least as high as remediation of the damage caused would cost at minimal price levels.
Amendment 70
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point g aintroductory (new)part
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 65 – paragraph 15 – introductorypoint parta
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 65 – paragraph 15 – point ab
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 65 – paragraph 15 – point bc
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 65 – paragraph 15 – point cd
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 65 – paragraph 35 a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 31 b– (new)introductory part
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 76 – paragraph 21 – point bc a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 76 – paragraph 42
Or. en
Justification
The sanctions need to be high enough for deterrence. The damage is often irreversible and permanent, and we need to create truly effective deterrence. The Directive covers the most serious environmental offices. Therefore, one minimum guide for maximum sanctions for all offences is enough. Limits for fines for environmental crimes should not be lower than those in the area of competition law.
Amendment 79
Proposal for a directive
Article 76 – paragraph 53
Or. en
Justification
The Directive covers the most serious environmental offices. Therefore, one minimum guide for maximum sanctions for all offences is enough. Limits for fines for environmental crimes should not be lower than those in the area of competition law.
Amendment 80
Proposal for a directive
Article 87 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 87 – paragraph 12 – pointintroductory bpart
Or. en
Justification
The introduction of invasive alien species or the illegal exploitation of very small populations of endemic species can cause irreversible and substantial conservation damage and should then be considered as aggravating circumstances. Substantial damage to species, species populations, ecosystems or habitats that are protected under EU or internal legislation should be taken into consideration as aggravating circumstances.
Amendment 82
Proposal for a directive
Article 87 – paragraph 12 – point j a (new)b
Or. en
Justification
Operators of installations who benefit from a derogation of obligations under the Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions should be subject to more stringent sanctions if they commit an environmental crime while already under preferential treatment.
Amendment 83
Proposal for a directive
Article 87 – paragraph 12 – point j b (new)c
Or. en
Justification
Protected sites have a high value for biodiversity conservation, hence it is important to raise the level of sanctions for the most significant cases.
Amendment 84
Proposal for a directive
Article 87 – paragraph 12 – point j c (new)d
Or. en
Justification
The objective is to cover crime convergence, i.e. cases where an offender commits several criminal offences simultaneously (e.g. waste trafficking and financial crimes). Indeed, environmental crimes are often committed with other crimes which are not necessarily related to the environment but to violations of other legislation.
Amendment 85
Proposal for a directive
Article 87 – paragraph 12 – point j d (new)
Or. en
Justification
Cruelty or lack of consideration towards animals, which are sentient beings as per Article 13 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), should also be taken into consideration as an aggravating circumstance. In addition, this would be coherent with the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species.
Amendment 86
Proposal for a directive
Article 97 – paragraph 12 – introductorypoint partk a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 97 – paragraph 1 – point a4
Or. en
Justification
cleanup and restoration of the nature to its previous condition should be expected from defendants in environmental cases; it should not result in a physical or legal person being considered less guilty.
Amendment 88
Proposal for a directive
Article 107 – paragraph 1 a (new)5
Or. en
Justification
As most of the time confiscated animals cannot be returned to the State of export, rescue centres have a crucial role in the fight against wildlife trafficking in the EU. However, they suffer from a chronic lack of funds and consideration. The result is that sometimes inappropriate rescue centres are selected, data are lost, animals are lost and potentially re-enter in the illegal trade. Using confiscated financial assets to support appropriate rescue centres for confiscated wildlife would also be coherent with CITES Resolution 17.8 on Disposal of illegally traded specimens.
Amendment 89
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – title
Article 7 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 117 – paragraph 16 b (new)
Or. en
Justification
The limitation period must be sufficiently long to allow investigation, prosecution, trial and judicial adjudication and it should be linked to the dates of discovery of the offence. There is a concern that delaying tactics by the defence during court proceedings could cause proceedings to fall outside of the limitation period and therefore fail through no fault of the enforcement or prosecuting authorities.
Amendment 91
Proposal for a directive
Article 118 – paragraph 21 – introductorypoint parta
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 118 – paragraph 21 – point ab
Or. en
Justification
The limitation period must be sufficiently long to allow investigation, prosecution, trial and judicial adjudication and it should be linked to the dates of discovery of the offence. There is a concern that delaying tactics by the defence during court proceedings could cause proceedings to fall outside of the limitation period and therefore fail through no fault of the enforcement or prosecuting authorities.
Amendment 93
Proposal for a directive
Article 118 – paragraph 21 – point bc
Or. en
Justification
The limitation period must be sufficiently long to allow investigation, prosecution, trial and judicial adjudication and it should be linked to the dates of discovery of the offence. There is a concern that delaying tactics by the defence during court proceedings could cause proceedings to fall outside of the limitation period and therefore fail through no fault of the enforcement or prosecuting authorities.
Amendment 94
Proposal for a directive
Article 118 – paragraph 21 – point c a (new)
Or. en
Justification
The limitation period must be sufficiently long to allow investigation, prosecution, trial and judicial adjudication and it should be linked to the dates of discovery of the offence. There is a concern that delaying tactics by the defence during court proceedings could cause proceedings to fall outside of the limitation period and therefore fail through no fault of the enforcement or prosecuting authorities.
Amendment 95
Proposal for a directive
Article 118 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductorypoint partd
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 128 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Member States should be obliged to establish jurisdiction over offences committed for the benefit of a legal person established on its territory because legal persons established in the EU should be bound by laws in force in the EU.
Amendment 97
Proposal for a directive
Article 128 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point ae
Or. en
Justification
Moved to paragraph 1. Member States should be obliged to establish jurisdiction over offences committed for the benefit of a legal person established on its territory because legal persons established in the EU should be bound by laws in force in the EU.
Amendment 98
Proposal for a directive
Article 128 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point cf
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 138 – paragraph 1 – point j a (new)
Or. en
Justification
The additions ensure that Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), which are often at the forefront of detecting environmental crime, are protected as well.
Amendment 100
Proposal for a directive
Article 138 – paragraph 21 – point j b (new)
Or. en
Justification
The additions ensure that Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), which are often at the forefront of detecting environmental crime, are protected as well.
Amendment 101
Proposal for a directive
Article 138 – paragraph 21 a– point j c (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – title
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 9 a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 1410 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
A minimum level of rights should be awarded to the general public in its capacity of exercising representation of nature as a victim of an environmental crime
Amendment 105
Proposal for a directive
Article 1511 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
These additional tools would enable to cover prevention in a more holistic way. Environmental crimes are not just an issue of the general public, but cooperation and awareness of all members of society is necessary including from the private sector and national authorities (e.g. judicial and enforcement agencies). In addition, some enforcement tools can act as preventive measures against environmental crime.
Amendment 106
Proposal for a directive
Article 1611 – paragraph 12 – point a
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 1611 – paragraph 12 a– (new)point b
Or. en
Justification
Effective enforcement requires capacities, skills, knowledge and training along the full enforcement chain.
Amendment 108
Proposal for a directive
Article 1611 – paragraph 12 b– (new)point c
Or. en
Justification
Effective enforcement requires capacities, skills, knowledge and training along the full enforcement chain.
Amendment 109
Proposal for a directive
Article 1711 – paragraph 13
Or. en
Justification
Effective enforcement requires capacities, skills, knowledge and training along the full enforcement chain.
Amendment 110
Proposal for a directive
Article 1812 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
Specific tools are listed under recital 29. ‘These tools should include among others the interception of communications, covert surveillance including electronic surveillance, controlled deliveries, the monitoring of bank accounts and other financial investigation tools’.
Amendment 111
Proposal for a directive
Article 1812 – paragraph 1 a– (new)point d
Or. en
Justification
Effective enforcement requires capacities, skills, knowledge and training along the full enforcement chain.
Amendment 112
Proposal for a directive
Article 1912 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Environmental crime is complicated and its inspection requires expertise and resources. EPPO is currently the European body best placed to combat the most serious environmental crimes, support Member States and keep up to date with evolving environmental crimes.
Amendment 113
Proposal for a directive
Article 2012 – paragraph 1 – point cd b (new)
Or. en
Justification
Cross-border cooperation is essential to the effectiveness of the Directive. National Strategies should detail the measures Member States intend to adopt and implement to facilitate coordination and cooperation intra and inter-State
Amendment 114
Proposal for a directive
Article 2012 – paragraph 1 – point fd c (new)
Or. en
Justification
Member States should detail how they intend to fulfil their reporting duties under the Directive in their National Strategies for transparency purposes and to ensure they meet the requirements set under the Directive.
Amendment 115
Proposal for a directive
Article 2112 – paragraph 32 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
Without crime statistics on environmental crime in Member States, citizens cannot judge the extent of the problem and are incapable of holding their governments and the European Union institutions to account for potential failure to adequately address environmental crimes.
Amendment 116
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – title
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point a
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 2212 – paragraph 12 – point c
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 2212 – paragraph 2 a– (new)subparagraph 1
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 2212 – paragraph 2 b (new)3
Or. en
Justification
Sentencing guidelines will assist Member States in defining and applying penalties and sanctions that are dissuasive, effective and proportionate to different criminal behaviours. This will greatly facilitate the requested consistency and harmonisation on sanction types and levels across Member States, which is crucial for the effective implementation of the Directive. For sanctions to be truly effective and dissuasive, and to avoid the persistence of incentives for perpetrators, prosecuted offenders shouldn’t be allowed to profit from their crimes.
Amendment 120
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 1
Article 12 a (new)
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 2513 – paragraph 21
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 2513 – paragraph 32
Or. en
Proposal for a directive
Article 2513 – paragraph 32 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 124
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Or. en
Amendment 125
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 c (new)
Or. en
Amendment 126
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – title
Or. en
Amendment 127
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 128
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 129
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Or. en
Amendment 130
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 131
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 132
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 133
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 134
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 135
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 136
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point e
Or. en
Amendment 137
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 138
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c
Or. en
Amendment 139
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point f
Or. en
Amendment 140
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 141
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point d
Or. en
Amendment 142
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 143
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point d b (new)
Or. en
Amendment 144
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 145
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Amendment 146
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 147
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Amendment 148
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 3
Or. en