34 Amendments of María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS related to 2021/0422(COD)
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) According to Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Union is committed to ensuring a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, inter alia by application of the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The Union continues to be concerned with the rise in environmental criminal offences and their effects, which undermine the effectiveness of Union environmental legislationresult in lost opportunity costs, in harm or loss of ecosystem services, habitats and species, undermine the effectiveness of Union environmental legislation and by undercutting legal prices might create unfair competition to legally operating businesses. Improved environmental standards by legislation aiming at high level of protection of environment and human health in some cases lead to increased costs for businesses, in particular in cases of inelasticity of price in the sector, and potentially raises the attractiveness of illegal operations1a. These offences are moreover increasingly extending beyond the borders of the Member States in which the offences are committed. Such offences pose a threat to the environment and therefore call for an appropriate and effective response. _________________ 1a Broadening the Toolbox for the Prevention of Illegal Waste Trafficking, to Address Emerging Threats, Suvantola, Leila ; Kankaanranta, Terhi, Environmental policy and law, 2018-04- 02, Vol.48 (1), p.64-74.
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The effective investigation, prosecution and adjudication of environmental criminal offences should be improved. The list of environmental criminal offences which were set out in Directive 2008/99/EC should be revised and additional categories of offences based on the most serious breaches of Union environmental law should be added. Over leniency with regard to the punishment of what might have been seen as minor environmental crimes, results in a situation where the fines received for violation of environmental law represent a small fraction of the profits and could be regarded as a cost of doing business. Provisions on sanctions should be strengthened in order to enhance theirhave a deterrent effect as well as to adequately support the enforcement chain in charge of detecting, investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating environmental criminal offences as well as to give a signal that it makes economic sense to comply with the environmental acquis.
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The acceleration of climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation, paired with tangible examples of their devastating effects, have led to the recognition of the green transition as the defining objective of our time and a matter of intergenerational equity. Therefore, when Union legislation covered by this Directive evolves, this Directive should also automatically cover any updated or amended Union legislation falling within the scope of criminal offences defined under this Directive, when the obligations under Union law remain unchanged in substance. However, when new legal instruments prohibit new conduct harmful to the environment, this Directive should be amended in the respective part in order to add to the categories of criminal offences also the new serious breaches of Union environmental law adopted after this Directive will have come into force.
Amendment 174 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Sanctions for the offences should be effective, dissuasive and proportionate. To this end, minimum levels for the maximum term of imprisonment should be set for natural persons. Accessory sanctions are often seen as being more effective than financial sanctions especially for legal persons. Additional sanctions or measures should be therefore available in criminal proceedings. These should include the obligation to fully cover the cost to reinstate the environment, exclusion from access to public funding, including tender procedures, grants and concessions and withdrawal of permits and authorisations. This is without prejudice to the discretion of judges or courts in criminal proceedings to impose appropriate sanctions in the individual cases.
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) When an environmental criminal offence causes substantial and irreversible or long-lasting damage to an entire ecosystem, this should be considered comparable to or qualifying as an offence of ecocide.
Amendment 183 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Where the crimes are of a continuing nature, they should be brought to an end as soon as possible. Where offenders have made financial gains, such gains should be confiscated. The Directive also lays down the rules for the management of the confiscated gains.
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) Lack of national rescue and sanctuary capacity may contribute to the lack of enforcement of relevant provisions related to wildlife trade by a Member State and result in measures inadequate to deter wildlife crime, such as administrative sanctions, without seizure. Dissuasive sanctions, collaboration and exchange between governmental and non- governmental sanctuaries and rescue centres to secure long term and species- appropriate solutions for seized wildlife are needed.
Amendment 191 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Furthermore, judicial and administrative authorities in the Member States should have at their disposal a proper guidance, allowing for a range of criminal sanctions and other measures to address different types of criminal behaviour in a tailored and effective manner, with an adequate level of harmonisation at EU level to ensure effective cross-border cooperation, to prevent dual criminality and prevent that low enforcement and low penalties levels in a Member State negatively affect the implementation of this Directive.
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Given, in particular, the mobility of perpetrators of illegal conduct covered by this Directive, together with the cross- border nature of offences and the possibility of cross-border investigations, Member States should establish jurisdiction in order to counter such conduct effectively. enable the competent authorities to investigate and prosecute such activities, including where an offence is committed, by means of information and communication technology, from their territory, whether or not such technology is based in their territory. Member States should also strengthen inter-agency cooperation between financial investigators and environmental crime agencies, to detect and pursue financial investigations into environmental crimes. This includes working with foreign counterparts to share information, facilitate prosecutions and recover assets that are moved and held abroad1a. _________________ 1a inter-agency cooperation proposed in the 2021 report Money Laundering from Environmental Crime by The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), available at https://www.fatf- gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Mo ney-Laundering-from-Environmental- Crime.pdf
Amendment 217 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) To ensure an effective, integrated and coherent enforcement system that includes administrative, civil and criminal law measures, Member States should organise internal cooperation and communication between all actors along the administrative and criminal enforcement chains and between punitive and remedial sanctioning actors. Following the applicable rules,Potential perpetrators are generally legal actors given legitimacy as a consequence of various societal structures, e.g. paying tax on corporate earnings, providing jobs, being established within government policy structures, and political considerations arguably dictate that these might be treated sympathetically by justice systems and policy1a. Supervisory agencies might be under pressure to maintain good relationships with the companies they regulate, and to support local economic health2a. Member States should therefore also cooperate through EU agencies, in particular Eurojust and Europol, as well as with EU bodies, including the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Anti- Fraud Office (OLAF), in their respective areas of competence. , by setting up national contact points. The review of Directive 2017/1371 should propose an inclusion of environmental crime to the criminal offenses covered by the Directive and an extension of the EPPO’s mandate to cover serious environmental crimes, via the European Council in accordance with Article 86(4) TFEU, is needed to effectively tackle these crimes in the EU. _________________ 1a Nurse, Angus: Contemporary Perspectives on Environmental Enforcement International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 2022-03, Vol.66 (4), p.327- 344 2a Environmental and Wildlife Crime in Sweden from 2000 to 2017, Stassen, Richard ; Ceccato, Vania; Favarin, Serena, Journal of contemporary criminal justice, 2020-08, Vol.36 (3), p.403-427.
Amendment 221 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31 a (new)
Recital 31 a (new)
(31a) Due to its global impact and cross- border nature, the EU and its Member States should make the fight against environmental crime a strategic political priority in international judicial cooperation and within the institutions and the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in particular by promoting compliance with multilateral environmental agreements through the adoption of criminal sanctions and the exchange of best practices and data on environmental crime. This international approach to environmental crime should also include extending the scope of the International Criminal Court to the crime of ecocide, and the EU and its Member States have a key role and responsibility in this regard.
Amendment 228 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Directive establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in order to combat environmental crime, assist the proper implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation and to help protect the environment more effectively.
Amendment 278 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that the following conduct constitutes a criminal offence when it is unlawful and, committed intentionally or with serious negligence:
Amendment 370 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States may establish their jurisdiction over the offence of ecocide for the most serious offences under Article 3(1) and Article 3(2), namely, unlawful or wanton conduct committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by that conduct.
Amendment 375 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) real or estimated avoided cost of compliance and the advantage gained over the legally operating business;
Amendment 376 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point b b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point b b (new)
Amendment 377 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) severity of the damage e.g. expressed as a cost of restoration, and/or expressed as the timeframe needed of bringing down the exceeded values and parameters to the limit values;
Amendment 378 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) spread of the damage, including consideration of the value of the supplied ecosystem service lost or temporarily lost, and social or monetary value of specimen of wildlife affected or killed;
Amendment 441 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) obligation to fully cover the cost of reinstateing the environment with reinstatement to be executed by contracted experts within a given time period;
Amendment 444 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a a (new)
(a a) civil liability in case the reinstatement is no longer possible;
Amendment 445 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a b (new)
(ab) obligation to cover cost of placement of confiscated animals in a rescue centre or other appropriate interim facility;
Amendment 448 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) fines proportionate to the financial advantage accrued by committing the offence;
Amendment 477 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the obligation to fully cover the cost of reinstateing the environment, with reinstatement to be executed by contracted experts within a given time period;
Amendment 491 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable pursuant to Article 6(2) is punishable by sanctions or measures, which are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Criminal liability of an enterprise may be transferred to the successor company.
Amendment 547 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 549 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Animal shelters, sanctuaries, rescue centres and any other appropriate interim facilities shall be equipped to accommodate and address the specific needs of confiscated specimens of wild fauna species subject to the offences (l),(m) of Article 3, to assist in the recovery and provide adequate and appropriate living conditions with a view on a release, when possible.
Amendment 550 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to provide for a limitation period that enables the investigation, prosecution, trial and judicial adjudication of criminal offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 for a sufficient period of time after the commission of those criminal offences, in order for those criminal offences to be tackled effectively. For the crimes comparable to or qualifying as an offence of ecocide and crimes affecting an ecosystem that is established as a legal entity there shall be no limitation period.
Amendment 621 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 623 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Without prejudice to the first paragraph, the Commission shall develop sentencing guidelines in order to assist the Member States and their authorities in proper and harmonised implementation of the Directive.
Amendment 626 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that effective investigative tools, such as those which are used in organised crime, financial crime, cybercrime or other serious crime cases, are also available for investigating or prosecuting offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4.
Amendment 633 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19 a Cooperation between the Member States and the Commission (OLAF) and other Union bodies Without prejudice to the rules on cross- border cooperation and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, the Member States, Eurojust, the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the Commission shall, within their respective competences, cooperate with each other in the fight against the criminal offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4. To that end the Commission, and where appropriate, Eurojust, shall provide such technical and operational assistance as the competent national authorities need to facilitate coordination of their investigations. The EPPO shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment the perpetrators of, and accomplices to, criminal offences. In that respect the EPPO shall undertake investigations, and carry out acts of prosecution and exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States.
Amendment 638 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the modes of coordination, exchange of best practices and cooperation between the competent authorities and between the competent national authorities and the competent national authorities of other Member States, including on the management of the confiscated gains;
Amendment 672 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 a (new)
Article 27 a (new)
Article 27 a Amendments to Directive 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law The title is amended as follows: Directive 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests and cross-border protection of the environment by means of criminal law Into Article 18 a new paragraph is inserted: By December 2024 the Commission shall present a legislative proposal on inclusion of environmental crimes to the criminal offences covered by this Directive and on the creation of the office of the Green European Public Prosecutor.