On the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directive 2008/99/EC

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, Public Health and Food Safety 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 1

Or. en

Amendment 2

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 3

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 4

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1 c (new)

Or. en

Amendment 5

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1 d (new)

Or. en

Amendment 6

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2

Or. en

Amendment 7

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

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 6

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

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 10

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

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

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 17

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

Or. en

Amendment 14

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

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

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 23 a (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 24

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 25

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 30

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 39 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 21

Proposal for a directive

Recital 40 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 22

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 23

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – paragraph 1

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

Or. en

Amendment 25

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)

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)

Or. en

Amendment 27

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 c (new)

Or. en

Amendment 28

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 d (new)

Or. en

Amendment 29

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 e (new)

Or. en

Amendment 30

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 f (new)

Or. en

Amendment 31

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 g (new)

Or. en

Amendment 32

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 33

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a

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 3 – paragraph 1 – point b

Or. en

Amendment 35

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c – last sentence

Or. en

Amendment 36

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e – introductory part

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 3 – paragraph 1 – point e – point i

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 ii

Or. en

Amendment 39

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h

Or. en

Amendment 40

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point k

Or. en

Amendment 41

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)

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 l

Or. en

Amendment 43

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point m

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 o

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 ii

Or. en

Amendment 46

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point r a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 47

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)

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 (new)

Or. en

Amendment 49

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 c (new)

Or. en

Amendment 50

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 d (new)

Or. en

Amendment 51

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 2

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 3 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 53

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 54

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point e b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 55

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point e c (new)

Or. en

Amendment 56

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 57

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 58

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 59

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 4 – point c b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 60

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 61

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 5 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 62

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 5 – point c

Or. en

Amendment 63

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 5 – point d

Or. en

Amendment 64

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 65

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 5 – point d b (new)

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 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 67

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

The omission of this offence is not justified.

Amendment 68

Proposal for a directive

Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 69

Proposal for a directive

Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point b

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 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 71

Proposal for a directive

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 72

Proposal for a directive

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 73

Proposal for a directive

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

Or. en

Amendment 74

Proposal for a directive

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

Or. en

Amendment 75

Proposal for a directive

Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 76

Proposal for a directive

Article 6 – paragraph 3 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 77

Proposal for a directive

Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b

Or. en

Amendment 78

Proposal for a directive

Article 7 – paragraph 4

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 7 – paragraph 5

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 8 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 81

Proposal for a directive

Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b

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 8 – paragraph 1 – point j a (new)

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 8 – paragraph 1 – point j b (new)

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 8 – paragraph 1 – point j c (new)

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 8 – paragraph 1 – 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 9 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 87

Proposal for a directive

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a

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 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)

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

Or. en

Amendment 90

Proposal for a directive

Article 11 – paragraph 1

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 11 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 92

Proposal for a directive

Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a

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 11 – paragraph 2 – point b

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 11 – paragraph 2 – point c

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 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 96

Proposal for a directive

Article 12 – 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 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a

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 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c

Or. en

Amendment 99

Proposal for a directive

Article 13 – paragraph 1

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 13 – paragraph 2

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 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 102

Proposal for a directive

Article 14 – title

Or. en

Amendment 103

Proposal for a directive

Article 14 – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 104

Proposal for a directive

Article 14 – 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 15 – 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 16 – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 107

Proposal for a directive

Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Effective enforcement requires capacities, skills, knowledge and training along the full enforcement chain.

Amendment 108

Proposal for a directive

Article 16 – paragraph 1 b (new)

Or. en

Justification

Effective enforcement requires capacities, skills, knowledge and training along the full enforcement chain.

Amendment 109

Proposal for a directive

Article 17 – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

Effective enforcement requires capacities, skills, knowledge and training along the full enforcement chain.

Amendment 110

Proposal for a directive

Article 18 – paragraph 1

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 18 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Effective enforcement requires capacities, skills, knowledge and training along the full enforcement chain.

Amendment 112

Proposal for a directive

Article 19 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 20 – paragraph 1 – point c

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 20 – paragraph 1 – point f

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 21 – paragraph 3

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

Or. en

Amendment 117

Proposal for a directive

Article 22 – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 118

Proposal for a directive

Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 119

Proposal for a directive

Article 22 – paragraph 2 b (new)

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

Or. en

Amendment 121

Proposal for a directive

Article 25 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 122

Proposal for a directive

Article 25 – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 123

Proposal for a directive

Article 25 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Or. en