Skip to content
OPINION (COM(2021)0851 – C90466/2021 – 2021/0422(COD))

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

PETI-AD-732916

Committee on Petitions · Rapporteur: Vlad Gheorghe

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull textProcedure & committee votes
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 26 Sept 2026

Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.

The Committee on Petitions gives its opinion on the Commission's proposal for a directive on protecting the environment through criminal law, replacing Directive 2008/99/EC. It finds that prosecutions have been few, sanctions not dissuasive and cross-border cooperation low, and that petitions show national authorities often fail to detect and prosecute environmental crime. It asks for equal penalties for the same crime across member states, tougher treatment of damage to protected or cultural areas, and use of sanction proceeds to finance restoration and victim compensation. It wants an EU Green Prosecutor by extending the European Public Prosecutor's Office to environmental crimes linked to organised crime, plus specialised police units, data sharing with Europol and Eurojust, and protection for those who report crimes.

Committee position. The Committee on Petitions proposes amendments to the Commission's proposal, seeking equal penalties across the EU, tougher treatment of damage to protected areas, use of sanction proceeds for restoration and compensation, an EU Green Prosecutor, stronger cross-border cooperation and protection for those who report environmental crime.

Key points

  1. The opinion recalls that Directive 2008/99/EC, Directive 2004/35 and Regulation (EU) 2019/1010 form the current EU framework on environmental crime, leaving penalties to member states if effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
  2. It cites the Commission's 2020 impact assessment finding low successful prosecutions, insufficient sanctions, low cross-border cooperation, gaps in resources, expertise and data, and no comprehensive national strategies.
  3. It notes petitions showing environmental crime harms Green Deal objectives, links to money laundering, corruption, trafficking and violence, creates unfair competition, and that national authorities lack capacity to detect and prosecute it.
  4. It states that environmental crime affects citizens' health, safety and well-being and entire ecosystems, including cross-border areas, so a definition of the cross-border dimension is needed for investigation and prosecution.
  5. It argues the revision should go beyond definitions and address links between large-scale environmental crime and other serious offences, in light of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on organised crime.
  6. It calls for equal penalties for the same crime across the EU so that perpetrators cannot exploit judicial asymmetries and choose less restrictive jurisdictions.
  7. It asks that environmental damage affecting EU protected areas or areas of cultural importance be treated as an aggravating factor, with consistent penalties across member states.
  8. It wants the financial cost of crime treated as an indicator of scale, high sanctions applied systematically as prevention, and sanction proceeds used to finance nature conservation, anti-crime measures and victim compensation, preferring 'finance and complete restoration' over 'reinstate'.
  9. It proposes an EU Green Prosecutor by extending the European Public Prosecutor's Office's competence under Article 86(4) TFEU to environmental crimes with known links to organised crime, to coordinate cross-border investigations and information exchange.
  10. It calls for specialised, well-trained and well-equipped police units, mutual assistance, joint investigation teams, exchange of criminal records and mutual recognition instruments such as arrest warrants, fines and confiscation orders.
  11. It asks member states to share data and cooperate with Europol and Eurojust so national strategies reflect the latest trends, with a stronger call on member states to share information with Europol.
  12. It supports and seeks protection for citizens, NGOs and associations that report environmental crime and may face retaliation.

Who is affected

  • Member states: must provide effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties and improve detection, investigation and prosecution.
  • National authorities and police: need specialised units, training, resources and cross-border cooperation tools.
  • Citizens, NGOs and associations reporting environmental crime: to be supported and protected from retaliation.
  • European Public Prosecutor's Office: competence would extend to environmental crimes linked to organised crime.
  • Europol and Eurojust: member states would share more data and cooperate with them.

Figures and deadlines

  • Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law
  • Directive 2004/35 on environmental liability
  • Regulation (EU) 2019/1010 on transposition of information obligations in environmental law
  • 2020 impact assessment by the European Commission
  • Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime
  • Article 86(4) TFEU, basis for extending the European Public Prosecutor's Office

Legal basis: Article 86(4) TFEU