Skip to content
DRAFT OPINION (COM(2021)851 – 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-PA-732916

Committee on Petitions · Rapporteur: Vlad Gheorghe

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull text
✦ 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' rapporteur drafts an opinion on the proposed directive on protecting the environment through criminal law, which would replace Directive 2008/99/EC. He says the current rules have led to few prosecutions and weak sanctions, and sets out what the new rules should require. He asks for equal penalties for the same crime across member states, tougher penalties where protected or cultural areas are damaged, and use of the proceeds of sanctions to finance restoration and compensate victims. He calls for an EU Green Prosecutor by extending the European Public Prosecutor's Office to environmental crimes linked to organised crime, and for specialised police units, joint investigation teams and mutual recognition tools. He wants more data sharing with Europol and Eurojust, and protection for citizens, NGOs and associations that report environmental crime and may face retaliation.

Committee position. The rapporteur proposes that the Committee on Petitions call for equal penalties across member states, aggravated penalties for damage to protected or cultural areas, use of sanction proceeds for restoration and victim compensation, an EU Green Prosecutor, specialised police units, more data sharing and protection for those who report environmental crime.

Key points

  1. The rapporteur says the current threefold EU framework leaves penalties to member states, provided they are effective, proportionate and dissuasive for intentional or seriously negligent crime.
  2. He finds prosecutions few, sanctions insufficient to dissuade, cross-border cooperation low, and reliable statistics lacking, and says the Commission decided to revise the directive as a Green Deal commitment.
  3. The committee notes from petitions that environmental crime harms the Green Deal, is linked to money laundering, corruption, trafficking and violence, and creates unfair competition for legal business.
  4. He says the effects harm citizens' health, safety and well-being, that victims call for better cross-border cooperation, and that a definition of the cross-border dimension of crime is needed.
  5. He asks that the revision 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. He calls for equal penalties for the same crime across member states, so that perpetrators cannot profit from judicial asymmetries and choose less restrictive jurisdictions.
  7. He wants damage to EU protected areas or areas of cultural importance treated as an aggravating fact, with consistent penalties across member states.
  8. He asks that the financial cost of crime be an indicator of its scale, that high sanctions be applied systematically as prevention, and that proceeds of sanctions finance nature conservation, anti-crime measures and victim compensation.
  9. He proposes using the terms "finance and complete restoration" rather than "reinstate", since perpetrators may lack the competence to restore destroyed areas.
  10. He calls for an EU Green Prosecutor by extending the European Public Prosecutor's Office, under Article 86(4) TFEU, to environmental crimes with known links to organised crime.
  11. He asks 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.
  12. He wants member states to exchange data and cooperate with Europol and Eurojust, and to protect citizens, NGOs and associations that report environmental crime from retaliation.

Who is affected

  • Member states: asked to align penalty levels, share data with Europol and Eurojust, and support cross-border investigations.
  • National authorities: found lacking in efficiency and capacity to detect, investigate and prosecute environmental crimes.
  • Citizens, NGOs and associations reporting environmental crime: to be supported and protected from retaliation.
  • Victims of environmental crime: to receive compensation financed from the proceeds of sanctions.
  • Legal businesses: face unfair competition from highly lucrative, low-risk environmental crime.

Legal basis: Article 86(4) TFEU