BETA


2007/0022(COD) Protection of the environment through criminal law

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead JURI NASSAUER Hartmut (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion ENVI JØRGENSEN Dan (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion LIBE HERRERO-TEJEDOR Luis (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
EC Treaty (after Amsterdam) EC 175-p1

Events

2008/12/06
   Final act published in Official Journal
Details

PURPOSE: to establish measures on the protection of the environment through criminal law.

LEGISLATIVE ACT: Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law.

CONTENT: the Council adopted a Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law after reaching agreement with the European Parliament at first reading.

The new legislative act obliges Member States to provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties in their national legislation for serious infringements of provisions of Community law on the protection of the environment. These infringements include, for example:

the emission of materials or ionising radiation into air, soil or water; the collection, transport, recovery or disposal of waste, including the shipment of waste; the operation of a plant in which a dangerous activity is carried out or in which dangerous substances or preparations are stored or used; the production, processing, handling, use, holding, storage, transport, import, export or disposal of nuclear materials or other hazardous radioactive substances; the killing, destruction, possession or taking of specimens of protected wild fauna or flora species; the placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances.

Member States shall ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting the intentional conduct referred to above is punishable as a criminal offence.

Legal persons can be held liable for offences where such offences have been committed for their benefit by any person who has a leading position within the legal person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person.

ENTRY INTO FORCE: 26/12/2008.

TRANSPOSITION: 26/12/2010.

2008/11/19
   CSL - Draft final act
Documents
2008/11/19
   CSL - Final act signed
2008/11/19
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2008/10/24
   EP/CSL - Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading
2008/10/24
   CSL - Council Meeting
2008/06/12
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2008/06/05
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2008/06/05
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2008/06/05
   CSL - Council Meeting
2008/06/05
   CSL - Council Meeting
2008/05/21
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2008/05/21
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted a legislative resolution amending the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The report had been tabled for consideration in plenary by Hartmut NASSAUER (EPP-ED, DE) on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs.

The main amendments-adopted under the first reading of the codecision procedure-were the result of a compromise between the Parliament and the Council.

Compliance with the ECJ ruling : to recall, the ECJ ruling of October 2007 on this proposal stated that the EU has competence to adopt criminal measures only where there is a “justifiable need", i.e., in the area of the common transport and environment policies. Therefore, the EU may not specify the type and level of criminal sanctions (which are applicable in the Member States) to be established. MEPs therefore decided to specify that the directive obliges Member States to include in their national legislation criminal sanctions for serious violations of Community environmental protection law, without creating obligations with regard to the implementation of such sanctions or of other available legal instruments in individual cases. They also deleted from the Commission's text an article providing for the duration and extension of the proposed sanctions.

"Unlawful acts" : in accordance with the principle held by the ECJ, MEPs state that only acts in violation of EU environmental protection law, as listed in the annex (Annex A and B) of the Directive , shall be considered unlawful. Proscribed c onduct constitutes a criminal offence, when unlawful and committed intentionally or with at least serious negligence.

Included among the unlawful acts regarding Community law, and which must be reclassified as crimes, are environmental damage caused by substantial damage to the quality of air, water and soil and poor management of waste or even the production, storage, export and disposal of nuclear materials or other radioactive substances.

Inciting, aiding and abetting : Member States must ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting the intentional conduct referred to in the text is punishable as a criminal offence.

Protected species : Parliament added definitions for "protected wild fauna and flora species" and "habitat within a protected site". It added to the scope of the Directive the trading in specimens of protected wild fauna and flora species or parts or derivatives thereof, except in cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of those specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species. It also added production, importation, exportation, placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances to the scope.

Reports : MEPs consider that the reporting obligations that the Commission is proposing to impose on the Member States are bureaucratic and superfluous. They therefore delete the reporting obligations of Member States within the context of this proposal.

Updating legislation : lastly, MEPs state that whenever subsequent legislation on environmental matters is adopted, it shall be specified whether it falls within the scope of this directive.

Entry into force : the Member States should comply with the Directive within two years after it enters into force.

Documents
2008/05/19
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2008/04/15
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
2008/04/15
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
Documents
2008/04/08
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading
Details

The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted, under the 1 st reading of the codecision procedure and by a slim majority (15 votes in favour, 11 against and 2 abstentions), the report by Hartmut NASSAUER (EPP-ED, DE), adopting the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law.

Overall, MEPs sought to reintegrate the measure into the exclusive field of Community law by limiting the impact of the directive to violations of Community environmental protection law. Member States therefore will retain the power to determine which sanctions to apply to violations of said Community law. In so doing, MEPs align themselves with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling of 23 October 2007 on this matter (C-440/05).

The main amendments can be summarised as follows:

Compliance with the ECJ ruling : as a reminder, the ECJ ruling of October 2007 on this proposal stated that the EU has competence to adopt criminal measures only where there is a "justifiable need", i.e., in the area of the common transport and environment policies. Therefore, the EU may not specify the type and level of criminal sanctions (which are applicable in the Member States) to be established. MEPs therefore decided to specify that the directive obliges Member States to include in their national legislation criminal sanctions for serious violations of Community environmental protection law, without creating obligations with regard to the implementation of such sanctions or of other available legal instruments in individual cases. They also deleted from the Commission’s text an article providing for the duration and extension of the proposed sanctions.

Liability : MEPs state that the Directive concerns criminal liability only and is without prejudice to Community or national law, and to any rules derived therefrom, with respect to civil liability for environmental harm.

“Unlawful acts” : in accordance with the principle held by the ECJ, MEPs state that only acts in violation of EU environmental protection law, as listed in the annex (Annex A and B) of the Directive , shall be considered unlawful. Among the illegal offences under Community law that should be reclassified as crimes, MEPs include environmental damage caused by the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or ionising radiation on to the Earth's surface, (including bedrock) , soil or water (including rocks), the emission of radiation onto the earth's surface (including bedrock) and rocks, the disposal of waste (collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste), and the manufacture and storage of nuclear materials (MEPs state, however, that only the Euratom Treaty - and the secondary legislation enacted pursuant thereto - regulates environmental protection with regard to nuclear activity; as a result, the unlawfulness of actions which affect the environment as a result of nuclear activities can be defined only by reference to the Euratom Treaty).

Protected species : MEPs add more details to the meaning of “protected wild fauna and flora species” and “habitat within a protected site”. MEPs also backed the inclusion within the directive's scope of the possession, killing or trading of protected fauna and flora species, the deterioration of a habitat of a protected site (except in cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of those specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species), and the manufacture and distribution of ozone-depleting substances.

“Intentional acts” – “acts of negligence ”: MEPs consider that intentional acts and acts of serious negligence should be treated separately. This is consistent with the structure of Council Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA of 12 July 2005. The question whether or not the perpetrator of the damage acted intentionally or negligently should be determined by reference to the time when the perpetrator became aware, or should have been aware, of the facts constituting the offence (and not to the time when the perpetrator commenced the activity). Furthermore, they state that the prior grant of an authorisation, licence or concession should not constitute a defence in such circumstances.

Reports : MEPs consider that the reporting obligations that the Commission is proposing to impose on the Member States are bureaucratic and superfluous. They therefore delete the reporting obligations of Member States within the context of this proposal.

Updating legislation : lastly, MEPs state that whenever subsequent legislation on environmental matters is adopted, it shall be specified whether it falls within the scope of this directive.

2008/03/31
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2008/03/27
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2008/03/14
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2008/02/27
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2008/02/06
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2007/12/20
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

On 20 December 2007, the delegations became aware of a document for information issued by the Presidency (within the framework of “other points” of the Environment Council) on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental protection through criminal law.

In this context, the Council recalls that, on 9 February 2007, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive on environmental protection through criminal law, which is of particular importance for the Member States of the European Union.

They consider that a uniform level of protection throughout Europe in the field of environmental criminal law is both necessary and appropriate. The Member States had already made this clear by agreeing on the Framework Decision on the protection of the environment through criminal law (see CNS/2000/0801 ), which was annulled on grounds of lack of competence by the European Court of Justice in its judgment of 13 September 2005 (on this point, refer to the file synopsis on “ Environmental protection: combating crime, criminal offences and penalties ”). The proposal for a Directive is intended to replace the annulled Framework Decision and thus fill a gap in the area of environmental protection through criminal law.

The Presidency continued the work initiated by the German Presidency, regarding this proposal as fundamental for the development of the protection of the environment. Six working party meetings have taken place to date, all of which were marked by constructive cooperation among the Member States and the Commission.

General consensus was reached among Member States on the inclusion of an Annex with the list of Community legislation, infringement of which results in unlawful conduct pursuant to Article 2(a) of the proposed Directive.

Following the decision taken by the Court of Justice on 23 October in Case C-440/05 pertaining to enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution, and the political framework set out by the Ministers of Justice at the lunch on 9 November, the working party reached broad agreement on the majority of the directive’s articles. Broad consensus was reached in the discussion on Articles 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Proposal, with only a very limited number of scrutiny reservations remaining, lodged by some Member States and by the Commission.

Notwithstanding the above, outstanding issues remain, in particular regarding Article 2, subparagraph c), and Article 3, subparagraphs a), b), f), e) and h), which essentially concern criminal policy decisions.

Contacts took place with the European Parliament with a view to facilitating a first reading agreement in the first half of 2008. The Presidency met the rapporteurs of the two committees involved in the co-decision procedure and took note of the European Parliament's high level of ambition.

Given the considerable progress made regarding this directive and the generally favourable view of the aims of the instrument and the contributions made by the

Member States, the Presidency believes that additional steps can be taken to further consolidate the agreement reached.

Documents
2007/12/20
   CSL - Council Meeting
2007/09/26
   ESC - Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report
Documents
2007/07/12
   EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2007/06/12
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Council took note of a Presidency report on the state of play of the proposal for a Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law.

The Presidency took up the proposal for a Directive at the earliest opportunity and arranged for its timely discussion in the Working Party on Substantive Criminal Law. Three working party meetings have taken place to date, all of which were marked by constructive cooperation between the Member States and the Commission. Discussions are currently focusing on drawing up the criminal offences (Article 3 in conjunction with Article 2(a)). Here there are some fundamental issues to be clarified, on the basis of the European Court of Justice's judgment of 13 September 2005. It has to be decided, for example, whether the Community legislator should confine itself to ensuring, by criminal law means, the enforcement of Community law or of such national law that transposes Community law, or whether the Directive should also apply to purely national environmental law. The clear attitude is emerging among the Member States that only violations of Community environmental legislation should be covered by the Directive.

Discussions on the rules on sanctions (Articles 5 and 7) should, in the unanimous view of the Member States, be postponed until the European Court of Justice has ruled on the Commission's action for annulment of the Framework Decision to strengthen the criminal law framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution. That Framework Decision contains detailed rules on sanctions that are comparable to those in the proposal for a Directive. The Court of Justice is expected to give its ruling towards the end of 2007.

Further discussions on the matter will take place under the Portuguese Presidency.

Documents
2007/06/12
   CSL - Council Meeting
2007/05/24
   EP - JØRGENSEN Dan (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in ENVI
2007/04/10
   EP - NASSAUER Hartmut (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2007/03/20
   EP - HERRERO-TEJEDOR Luis (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
2007/03/15
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
2007/02/15
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Commission presented to the Council information concerning the recent Commission proposal for a Directive which would oblige Member States to treat serious offences against the environment as criminal acts and would ensure that they are effectively sanctioned. The proposal also sets minimum sanctions for environmental crimes across the Member States.

To recall, in September 2005, the European Court of Justice confirmed that the Community had the competence to oblige Member States to adopt criminal law measures for the protection of the environment if necessary to ensure the efficient implementation of its environmental policy. For this reason it annulled the Framework Decision on environmental crime adopted in 2003 by the Council on the basis of a Member State initiative based on the provisions for judicial cooperation in criminal matters contained in the EU Treaty (Title VI, so called 3rd pillar).

The Commission’s new proposal therefore is designed to replace both the Council's Framework Decision of 2003 and a proposal for a directive already presented by the Commission in 2001, which the Council rejected when adopting the 2003 Framework Decision.

Member States would be required to ensure that a range of activities (e.g. illegal shipment of waste and unlawful trade in endangered species or in ozone-depleting substances) already prohibited by EU or national legislation are considered criminal offences, when committed intentionally or with serious negligence. Member states would have to ensure that particularly serious environmental crimes are punishable by a maximum of at least 5 years imprisonment and fines for companies of at least EUR 750 000. These cases would include crimes that have resulted in death or serious injury of a person or substantial damage to air, soil, water, animals or plants, or when the offence has been committed by a criminal organisation.

In addition, the proposed directive provides for supplementary or alternative sanctions, such as the obligation to clean up/reinstate the environment or the possibility of stopping businesses from operating.

Lastly, the proposed measures will ensure that criminals cannot exploit the significant differences which currently exist between the Member States. Loopholes in the action against environmental crime should therefore no longer exist within the European Union.

Documents
2007/02/15
   CSL - Council Meeting
2007/02/09
   EC - Legislative proposal
Details

PURPOSE : to ensure criminal sanctions for certain conduct related to protection of the environment.

PROPOSED ACT : Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

CONTENT : This proposal replaces the proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law (please refer to COD/2001/0076 and its accompanying fact sheet). This proposal comes about as a result of the findings of the European Court of Justice in its judgment of 13 September 2005 (C- 176/03, Commission v Council) which annulled the Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA on the protection of the environment through criminal law.

According to the judgment, the Community may take measures relating to the criminal law of the Member States which it considers necessary in order to ensure that the rules it lays down on environmental protection are fully effective. Studies have shown that the sanctions currently in place in the Member States are not always sufficient to implement effectively the Community's policy on environmental protection. Criminal sanctions are not in force in all Member States for all serious environmental offences, even though only criminal penalties will have a sufficiently dissuasive effect Apart from the fact that the types of sanctions applicable differ from Member State to Member State, there are also significant differences regarding the levels of sanctions that are applied to similar or identical offences. The impact of environmental crime often crosses borders. Offenders are therefore currently in a position to exploit the existing differences between Member States' legislation to their advantage. The problem needs to be addressed through action at Community level.

Main elements of the proposal: the proposed directive establishes a minimum set of serious environmental offences that should be considered criminal throughout the Community when committed intentionally or with at least serious negligence. Participation in and instigation of such activities should equally be considered a criminal offence. The scope of liability of legal persons is defined in detail. The offences should be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions for natural persons, whereas criminal or non-criminal sanctions shall be applied to legal persons.

For offences committed under certain aggravating circumstances, such as having caused a particularly serious result or the involvement of a criminal organisation, the minimum level of maximum sanctions for natural and legal persons is subject to approximation, too.

Definition of offences: this corresponds largely to the definitions set out in the Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA (see CNS/2000/0801 ) while taking into consideration some amendments of the European Parliament made to the original directive proposal and accepted by the Commission after the first reading . All offences but one require their "unlawful" commission, "unlawful" being defined as infringing Community or Member States legislation, administrative regulations or decisions by a competent authority aiming at the protection of the environment. Offences include the illegal shipment of waste as defined in Regulation 1013/2006/EC for profit and in a non-negligible quantity, and the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials into air, soil or water, which causes death or serious injury to any person. They also include the unlawful significant deterioration of a protected habitat.

Liability of legal persons: Member States should ensure that legal persons can be held liable for offences where such offences have been committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, who has a leading position within the legal person. A legal person can also be held liable where the lack of supervision or control has made possible the commission of an offence for the benefit of that legal person by a person under its authority. Liability of a legal person must not exclude criminal proceedings against natural persons who are perpetrators, instigators or accessories in the offences referred to.

Sanctions: Member States must ensure that the commission of the offences is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions. Where certain offences are committed with serious negligence and cause substantial damage to air, soil, water, animals or plants, they must be punishable by a maximum of at least between one and three years imprisonment. This increases by a length of at least between two and five years imprisonment, and between five and ten years imprisonment depending on the severity of the offence and the mental element i.e whether offences were intentionally committed.

For legal persons, these must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, and must include criminal or non-criminal fines. For legal persons, there are three levels of fines: between EUR 300 000 and EUR 500 000; and between EUR 500 000 and EUR 750 000; and between EUR 750 000 and EUR 1 500 000 in cases where the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or ionising radiation into air, soil or water, or any other prescribed offence intentionally causes death or serious injury to any person.

Alternative sanctions are suggested for both natural and legal persons. Such sanctions may be more effective than imprisonment or fines in many cases and include the obligation to reinstate the environment, the placing under judicial supervision, the ban on engaging in commercial activities or the publication of judicial decisions. Even though in many cases confiscation of crime-related objects will be an essential tool, the inclusion of a specific provision has not been considered necessary, as most of the serious environmental offences will be covered by the scope of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property.

2007/02/09
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2007/02/09
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2007/02/08
   EC - Legislative proposal published
Details

PURPOSE : to ensure criminal sanctions for certain conduct related to protection of the environment.

PROPOSED ACT : Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

CONTENT : This proposal replaces the proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law (please refer to COD/2001/0076 and its accompanying fact sheet). This proposal comes about as a result of the findings of the European Court of Justice in its judgment of 13 September 2005 (C- 176/03, Commission v Council) which annulled the Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA on the protection of the environment through criminal law.

According to the judgment, the Community may take measures relating to the criminal law of the Member States which it considers necessary in order to ensure that the rules it lays down on environmental protection are fully effective. Studies have shown that the sanctions currently in place in the Member States are not always sufficient to implement effectively the Community's policy on environmental protection. Criminal sanctions are not in force in all Member States for all serious environmental offences, even though only criminal penalties will have a sufficiently dissuasive effect Apart from the fact that the types of sanctions applicable differ from Member State to Member State, there are also significant differences regarding the levels of sanctions that are applied to similar or identical offences. The impact of environmental crime often crosses borders. Offenders are therefore currently in a position to exploit the existing differences between Member States' legislation to their advantage. The problem needs to be addressed through action at Community level.

Main elements of the proposal: the proposed directive establishes a minimum set of serious environmental offences that should be considered criminal throughout the Community when committed intentionally or with at least serious negligence. Participation in and instigation of such activities should equally be considered a criminal offence. The scope of liability of legal persons is defined in detail. The offences should be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions for natural persons, whereas criminal or non-criminal sanctions shall be applied to legal persons.

For offences committed under certain aggravating circumstances, such as having caused a particularly serious result or the involvement of a criminal organisation, the minimum level of maximum sanctions for natural and legal persons is subject to approximation, too.

Definition of offences: this corresponds largely to the definitions set out in the Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA (see CNS/2000/0801 ) while taking into consideration some amendments of the European Parliament made to the original directive proposal and accepted by the Commission after the first reading . All offences but one require their "unlawful" commission, "unlawful" being defined as infringing Community or Member States legislation, administrative regulations or decisions by a competent authority aiming at the protection of the environment. Offences include the illegal shipment of waste as defined in Regulation 1013/2006/EC for profit and in a non-negligible quantity, and the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials into air, soil or water, which causes death or serious injury to any person. They also include the unlawful significant deterioration of a protected habitat.

Liability of legal persons: Member States should ensure that legal persons can be held liable for offences where such offences have been committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, who has a leading position within the legal person. A legal person can also be held liable where the lack of supervision or control has made possible the commission of an offence for the benefit of that legal person by a person under its authority. Liability of a legal person must not exclude criminal proceedings against natural persons who are perpetrators, instigators or accessories in the offences referred to.

Sanctions: Member States must ensure that the commission of the offences is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions. Where certain offences are committed with serious negligence and cause substantial damage to air, soil, water, animals or plants, they must be punishable by a maximum of at least between one and three years imprisonment. This increases by a length of at least between two and five years imprisonment, and between five and ten years imprisonment depending on the severity of the offence and the mental element i.e whether offences were intentionally committed.

For legal persons, these must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, and must include criminal or non-criminal fines. For legal persons, there are three levels of fines: between EUR 300 000 and EUR 500 000; and between EUR 500 000 and EUR 750 000; and between EUR 750 000 and EUR 1 500 000 in cases where the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or ionising radiation into air, soil or water, or any other prescribed offence intentionally causes death or serious injury to any person.

Alternative sanctions are suggested for both natural and legal persons. Such sanctions may be more effective than imprisonment or fines in many cases and include the obligation to reinstate the environment, the placing under judicial supervision, the ban on engaging in commercial activities or the publication of judicial decisions. Even though in many cases confiscation of crime-related objects will be an essential tool, the inclusion of a specific provision has not been considered necessary, as most of the serious environmental offences will be covered by the scope of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property.

Documents

Activities

AmendmentsDossier
64 2007/0022(COD)
2008/03/14 JURI 49 amendments...
source: PE-404.474
2008/03/31 JURI 15 amendments...
source: PE-404.583

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0/associated
Old
True
New
 
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2007/0160/COM_SEC(2007)0160_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2007/0160/COM_SEC(2007)0160_EN.pdf
docs/5/docs/0/url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ENVI-AD-400272_EN.html
docs/7/docs/0/url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AD-398484_EN.html
events/0/body
Old
CSL
New
EC
events/0/date
Old
2007-02-15T00:00:00
New
2007-02-08T00:00:00
events/0/docs/0
url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2007/0051/COM_COM(2007)0051_EN.pdf
title
COM(2007)0051
events/0/docs/0
url
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2781*&MEET_DATE=15/02/2007
title
2781
events/0/docs/1
url
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2007&nu_doc=51
title
EUR-Lex
events/0/summary/0
PURPOSE : to ensure criminal sanctions for certain conduct related to protection of the environment.
events/0/summary/0
The Commission presented to the Council information concerning the recent Commission proposal for a Directive which would oblige Member States to treat serious offences against the environment as criminal acts and would ensure that they are effectively sanctioned. The proposal also sets minimum sanctions for environmental crimes across the Member States.
events/0/summary/1
PROPOSED ACT : Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
events/0/summary/1
To recall, in September 2005, the European Court of Justice confirmed that the Community had the competence to oblige Member States to adopt criminal law measures for the protection of the environment if necessary to ensure the efficient implementation of its environmental policy. For this reason it annulled the Framework Decision on environmental crime adopted in 2003 by the Council on the basis of a Member State initiative based on the provisions for judicial cooperation in criminal matters contained in the EU Treaty (Title VI, so called 3rd pillar).
events/0/summary/2
CONTENT : This proposal replaces the proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law (please refer to COD/2001/0076 and its accompanying fact sheet). This proposal comes about as a result of the findings of the European Court of Justice in its judgment of 13 September 2005 (C- 176/03, Commission v Council) which annulled the Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
events/0/summary/2
The Commission’s new proposal therefore is designed to replace both the Council's Framework Decision of 2003 and a proposal for a directive already presented by the Commission in 2001, which the Council rejected when adopting the 2003 Framework Decision.
events/0/summary/3
According to the judgment, the Community may take measures relating to the criminal law of the Member States which it considers necessary in order to ensure that the rules it lays down on environmental protection are fully effective. Studies have shown that the sanctions currently in place in the Member States are not always sufficient to implement effectively the Community's policy on environmental protection. Criminal sanctions are not in force in all Member States for all serious environmental offences, even though only criminal penalties will have a sufficiently dissuasive effect Apart from the fact that the types of sanctions applicable differ from Member State to Member State, there are also significant differences regarding the levels of sanctions that are applied to similar or identical offences. The impact of environmental crime often crosses borders. Offenders are therefore currently in a position to exploit the existing differences between Member States' legislation to their advantage. The problem needs to be addressed through action at Community level.
events/0/summary/3
Member States would be required to ensure that a range of activities (e.g. illegal shipment of waste and unlawful trade in endangered species or in ozone-depleting substances) already prohibited by EU or national legislation are considered criminal offences, when committed intentionally or with serious negligence. Member states would have to ensure that particularly serious environmental crimes are punishable by a maximum of at least 5 years imprisonment and fines for companies of at least EUR 750 000. These cases would include crimes that have resulted in death or serious injury of a person or substantial damage to air, soil, water, animals or plants, or when the offence has been committed by a criminal organisation.
events/0/summary/4
Main elements of the proposal: the proposed directive establishes a minimum set of serious environmental offences that should be considered criminal throughout the Community when committed intentionally or with at least serious negligence. Participation in and instigation of such activities should equally be considered a criminal offence. The scope of liability of legal persons is defined in detail. The offences should be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions for natural persons, whereas criminal or non-criminal sanctions shall be applied to legal persons.
events/0/summary/4
In addition, the proposed directive provides for supplementary or alternative sanctions, such as the obligation to clean up/reinstate the environment or the possibility of stopping businesses from operating.
events/0/summary/5
For offences committed under certain aggravating circumstances, such as having caused a particularly serious result or the involvement of a criminal organisation, the minimum level of maximum sanctions for natural and legal persons is subject to approximation, too.
events/0/summary/5
Lastly, the proposed measures will ensure that criminals cannot exploit the significant differences which currently exist between the Member States. Loopholes in the action against environmental crime should therefore no longer exist within the European Union.
events/0/summary/6
Definition of offences: this corresponds largely to the definitions set out in the Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA (see CNS/2000/0801 ) while taking into consideration some amendments of the European Parliament made to the original directive proposal and accepted by the Commission after the first reading . All offences but one require their "unlawful" commission, "unlawful" being defined as infringing Community or Member States legislation, administrative regulations or decisions by a competent authority aiming at the protection of the environment. Offences include the illegal shipment of waste as defined in Regulation 1013/2006/EC for profit and in a non-negligible quantity, and the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials into air, soil or water, which causes death or serious injury to any person. They also include the unlawful significant deterioration of a protected habitat.
events/0/summary/7
Liability of legal persons: Member States should ensure that legal persons can be held liable for offences where such offences have been committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, who has a leading position within the legal person. A legal person can also be held liable where the lack of supervision or control has made possible the commission of an offence for the benefit of that legal person by a person under its authority. Liability of a legal person must not exclude criminal proceedings against natural persons who are perpetrators, instigators or accessories in the offences referred to.
events/0/summary/8
Sanctions: Member States must ensure that the commission of the offences is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions. Where certain offences are committed with serious negligence and cause substantial damage to air, soil, water, animals or plants, they must be punishable by a maximum of at least between one and three years imprisonment. This increases by a length of at least between two and five years imprisonment, and between five and ten years imprisonment depending on the severity of the offence and the mental element i.e whether offences were intentionally committed.
events/0/summary/9
For legal persons, these must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, and must include criminal or non-criminal fines. For legal persons, there are three levels of fines: between EUR 300 000 and EUR 500 000; and between EUR 500 000 and EUR 750 000; and between EUR 750 000 and EUR 1 500 000 in cases where the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or ionising radiation into air, soil or water, or any other prescribed offence intentionally causes death or serious injury to any person.
events/0/summary/10
Alternative sanctions are suggested for both natural and legal persons. Such sanctions may be more effective than imprisonment or fines in many cases and include the obligation to reinstate the environment, the placing under judicial supervision, the ban on engaging in commercial activities or the publication of judicial decisions. Even though in many cases confiscation of crime-related objects will be an essential tool, the inclusion of a specific provision has not been considered necessary, as most of the serious environmental offences will be covered by the scope of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property.
events/0/type
Old
Debate in Council
New
Legislative proposal published
events/1/body
Old
EP
New
CSL
events/1/date
Old
2007-03-15T00:00:00
New
2007-02-15T00:00:00
events/1/docs
  • url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2781*&MEET_DATE=15/02/2007 title: 2781
events/1/summary
  • The Commission presented to the Council information concerning the recent Commission proposal for a Directive which would oblige Member States to treat serious offences against the environment as criminal acts and would ensure that they are effectively sanctioned. The proposal also sets minimum sanctions for environmental crimes across the Member States.
  • To recall, in September 2005, the European Court of Justice confirmed that the Community had the competence to oblige Member States to adopt criminal law measures for the protection of the environment if necessary to ensure the efficient implementation of its environmental policy. For this reason it annulled the Framework Decision on environmental crime adopted in 2003 by the Council on the basis of a Member State initiative based on the provisions for judicial cooperation in criminal matters contained in the EU Treaty (Title VI, so called 3rd pillar).
  • The Commission’s new proposal therefore is designed to replace both the Council's Framework Decision of 2003 and a proposal for a directive already presented by the Commission in 2001, which the Council rejected when adopting the 2003 Framework Decision.
  • Member States would be required to ensure that a range of activities (e.g. illegal shipment of waste and unlawful trade in endangered species or in ozone-depleting substances) already prohibited by EU or national legislation are considered criminal offences, when committed intentionally or with serious negligence. Member states would have to ensure that particularly serious environmental crimes are punishable by a maximum of at least 5 years imprisonment and fines for companies of at least EUR 750 000. These cases would include crimes that have resulted in death or serious injury of a person or substantial damage to air, soil, water, animals or plants, or when the offence has been committed by a criminal organisation.
  • In addition, the proposed directive provides for supplementary or alternative sanctions, such as the obligation to clean up/reinstate the environment or the possibility of stopping businesses from operating.
  • Lastly, the proposed measures will ensure that criminals cannot exploit the significant differences which currently exist between the Member States. Loopholes in the action against environmental crime should therefore no longer exist within the European Union.
events/1/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
New
Debate in Council
events/2/body
Old
CSL
New
EP
events/2/date
Old
2007-06-12T00:00:00
New
2007-03-15T00:00:00
events/2/docs
  • url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2807*&MEET_DATE=12/06/2007 title: 2807
events/2/summary
  • The Council took note of a Presidency report on the state of play of the proposal for a Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
  • The Presidency took up the proposal for a Directive at the earliest opportunity and arranged for its timely discussion in the Working Party on Substantive Criminal Law. Three working party meetings have taken place to date, all of which were marked by constructive cooperation between the Member States and the Commission. Discussions are currently focusing on drawing up the criminal offences (Article 3 in conjunction with Article 2(a)). Here there are some fundamental issues to be clarified, on the basis of the European Court of Justice's judgment of 13 September 2005. It has to be decided, for example, whether the Community legislator should confine itself to ensuring, by criminal law means, the enforcement of Community law or of such national law that transposes Community law, or whether the Directive should also apply to purely national environmental law. The clear attitude is emerging among the Member States that only violations of Community environmental legislation should be covered by the Directive.
  • Discussions on the rules on sanctions (Articles 5 and 7) should, in the unanimous view of the Member States, be postponed until the European Court of Justice has ruled on the Commission's action for annulment of the Framework Decision to strengthen the criminal law framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution. That Framework Decision contains detailed rules on sanctions that are comparable to those in the proposal for a Directive. The Court of Justice is expected to give its ruling towards the end of 2007.
  • Further discussions on the matter will take place under the Portuguese Presidency.
events/2/type
Old
Debate in Council
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
events/3/body
Old
EP
New
CSL
events/3/date
Old
2007-07-12T00:00:00
New
2007-06-12T00:00:00
events/3/docs
  • url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2807*&MEET_DATE=12/06/2007 title: 2807
events/3/summary
  • The Council took note of a Presidency report on the state of play of the proposal for a Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
  • The Presidency took up the proposal for a Directive at the earliest opportunity and arranged for its timely discussion in the Working Party on Substantive Criminal Law. Three working party meetings have taken place to date, all of which were marked by constructive cooperation between the Member States and the Commission. Discussions are currently focusing on drawing up the criminal offences (Article 3 in conjunction with Article 2(a)). Here there are some fundamental issues to be clarified, on the basis of the European Court of Justice's judgment of 13 September 2005. It has to be decided, for example, whether the Community legislator should confine itself to ensuring, by criminal law means, the enforcement of Community law or of such national law that transposes Community law, or whether the Directive should also apply to purely national environmental law. The clear attitude is emerging among the Member States that only violations of Community environmental legislation should be covered by the Directive.
  • Discussions on the rules on sanctions (Articles 5 and 7) should, in the unanimous view of the Member States, be postponed until the European Court of Justice has ruled on the Commission's action for annulment of the Framework Decision to strengthen the criminal law framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution. That Framework Decision contains detailed rules on sanctions that are comparable to those in the proposal for a Directive. The Court of Justice is expected to give its ruling towards the end of 2007.
  • Further discussions on the matter will take place under the Portuguese Presidency.
events/3/type
Old
Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
New
Debate in Council
events/4/body
Old
CSL
New
EP
events/4/date
Old
2007-12-20T00:00:00
New
2007-07-12T00:00:00
events/4/docs
  • url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2842*&MEET_DATE=20/12/2007 title: 2842
events/4/summary
  • On 20 December 2007, the delegations became aware of a document for information issued by the Presidency (within the framework of “other points” of the Environment Council) on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental protection through criminal law.
  • In this context, the Council recalls that, on 9 February 2007, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive on environmental protection through criminal law, which is of particular importance for the Member States of the European Union.
  • They consider that a uniform level of protection throughout Europe in the field of environmental criminal law is both necessary and appropriate. The Member States had already made this clear by agreeing on the Framework Decision on the protection of the environment through criminal law (see CNS/2000/0801 ), which was annulled on grounds of lack of competence by the European Court of Justice in its judgment of 13 September 2005 (on this point, refer to the file synopsis on “ Environmental protection: combating crime, criminal offences and penalties ”). The proposal for a Directive is intended to replace the annulled Framework Decision and thus fill a gap in the area of environmental protection through criminal law.
  • The Presidency continued the work initiated by the German Presidency, regarding this proposal as fundamental for the development of the protection of the environment. Six working party meetings have taken place to date, all of which were marked by constructive cooperation among the Member States and the Commission.
  • General consensus was reached among Member States on the inclusion of an Annex with the list of Community legislation, infringement of which results in unlawful conduct pursuant to Article 2(a) of the proposed Directive.
  • Following the decision taken by the Court of Justice on 23 October in Case C-440/05 pertaining to enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution, and the political framework set out by the Ministers of Justice at the lunch on 9 November, the working party reached broad agreement on the majority of the directive’s articles. Broad consensus was reached in the discussion on Articles 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Proposal, with only a very limited number of scrutiny reservations remaining, lodged by some Member States and by the Commission.
  • Notwithstanding the above, outstanding issues remain, in particular regarding Article 2, subparagraph c), and Article 3, subparagraphs a), b), f), e) and h), which essentially concern criminal policy decisions.
  • Contacts took place with the European Parliament with a view to facilitating a first reading agreement in the first half of 2008. The Presidency met the rapporteurs of the two committees involved in the co-decision procedure and took note of the European Parliament's high level of ambition.
  • Given the considerable progress made regarding this directive and the generally favourable view of the aims of the instrument and the contributions made by the
  • Member States, the Presidency believes that additional steps can be taken to further consolidate the agreement reached.
events/4/type
Old
Debate in Council
New
Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
events/5/body
Old
EP
New
CSL
events/5/date
Old
2008-04-08T00:00:00
New
2007-12-20T00:00:00
events/5/docs
  • url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2842*&MEET_DATE=20/12/2007 title: 2842
events/5/summary/0
On 20 December 2007, the delegations became aware of a document for information issued by the Presidency (within the framework of “other points” of the Environment Council) on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental protection through criminal law.
events/5/summary/0
The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted, under the 1 st reading of the codecision procedure and by a slim majority (15 votes in favour, 11 against and 2 abstentions), the report by Hartmut NASSAUER (EPP-ED, DE), adopting the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
events/5/summary/1
In this context, the Council recalls that, on 9 February 2007, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive on environmental protection through criminal law, which is of particular importance for the Member States of the European Union.
events/5/summary/1
Overall, MEPs sought to reintegrate the measure into the exclusive field of Community law by limiting the impact of the directive to violations of Community environmental protection law. Member States therefore will retain the power to determine which sanctions to apply to violations of said Community law. In so doing, MEPs align themselves with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling of 23 October 2007 on this matter (C-440/05).
events/5/summary/2
They consider that a uniform level of protection throughout Europe in the field of environmental criminal law is both necessary and appropriate. The Member States had already made this clear by agreeing on the Framework Decision on the protection of the environment through criminal law (see CNS/2000/0801 ), which was annulled on grounds of lack of competence by the European Court of Justice in its judgment of 13 September 2005 (on this point, refer to the file synopsis on “ Environmental protection: combating crime, criminal offences and penalties ”). The proposal for a Directive is intended to replace the annulled Framework Decision and thus fill a gap in the area of environmental protection through criminal law.
events/5/summary/2
The main amendments can be summarised as follows:
events/5/summary/3
The Presidency continued the work initiated by the German Presidency, regarding this proposal as fundamental for the development of the protection of the environment. Six working party meetings have taken place to date, all of which were marked by constructive cooperation among the Member States and the Commission.
events/5/summary/3
Compliance with the ECJ ruling : as a reminder, the ECJ ruling of October 2007 on this proposal stated that the EU has competence to adopt criminal measures only where there is a "justifiable need", i.e., in the area of the common transport and environment policies. Therefore, the EU may not specify the type and level of criminal sanctions (which are applicable in the Member States) to be established. MEPs therefore decided to specify that the directive obliges Member States to include in their national legislation criminal sanctions for serious violations of Community environmental protection law, without creating obligations with regard to the implementation of such sanctions or of other available legal instruments in individual cases. They also deleted from the Commission’s text an article providing for the duration and extension of the proposed sanctions.
events/5/summary/4
General consensus was reached among Member States on the inclusion of an Annex with the list of Community legislation, infringement of which results in unlawful conduct pursuant to Article 2(a) of the proposed Directive.
events/5/summary/4
Liability : MEPs state that the Directive concerns criminal liability only and is without prejudice to Community or national law, and to any rules derived therefrom, with respect to civil liability for environmental harm.
events/5/summary/5
Following the decision taken by the Court of Justice on 23 October in Case C-440/05 pertaining to enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution, and the political framework set out by the Ministers of Justice at the lunch on 9 November, the working party reached broad agreement on the majority of the directive’s articles. Broad consensus was reached in the discussion on Articles 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Proposal, with only a very limited number of scrutiny reservations remaining, lodged by some Member States and by the Commission.
events/5/summary/5
“Unlawful acts” : in accordance with the principle held by the ECJ, MEPs state that only acts in violation of EU environmental protection law, as listed in the annex (Annex A and B) of the Directive , shall be considered unlawful. Among the illegal offences under Community law that should be reclassified as crimes, MEPs include environmental damage caused by the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or ionising radiation on to the Earth's surface, (including bedrock) , soil or water (including rocks), the emission of radiation onto the earth's surface (including bedrock) and rocks, the disposal of waste (collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste), and the manufacture and storage of nuclear materials (MEPs state, however, that only the Euratom Treaty - and the secondary legislation enacted pursuant thereto - regulates environmental protection with regard to nuclear activity; as a result, the unlawfulness of actions which affect the environment as a result of nuclear activities can be defined only by reference to the Euratom Treaty).
events/5/summary/6
Notwithstanding the above, outstanding issues remain, in particular regarding Article 2, subparagraph c), and Article 3, subparagraphs a), b), f), e) and h), which essentially concern criminal policy decisions.
events/5/summary/6
Protected species : MEPs add more details to the meaning of “protected wild fauna and flora species” and “habitat within a protected site”. MEPs also backed the inclusion within the directive's scope of the possession, killing or trading of protected fauna and flora species, the deterioration of a habitat of a protected site (except in cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of those specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species), and the manufacture and distribution of ozone-depleting substances.
events/5/summary/7
Contacts took place with the European Parliament with a view to facilitating a first reading agreement in the first half of 2008. The Presidency met the rapporteurs of the two committees involved in the co-decision procedure and took note of the European Parliament's high level of ambition.
events/5/summary/7
“Intentional acts” – “acts of negligence ”: MEPs consider that intentional acts and acts of serious negligence should be treated separately. This is consistent with the structure of Council Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA of 12 July 2005. The question whether or not the perpetrator of the damage acted intentionally or negligently should be determined by reference to the time when the perpetrator became aware, or should have been aware, of the facts constituting the offence (and not to the time when the perpetrator commenced the activity). Furthermore, they state that the prior grant of an authorisation, licence or concession should not constitute a defence in such circumstances.
events/5/summary/8
Given the considerable progress made regarding this directive and the generally favourable view of the aims of the instrument and the contributions made by the
events/5/summary/8
Reports : MEPs consider that the reporting obligations that the Commission is proposing to impose on the Member States are bureaucratic and superfluous. They therefore delete the reporting obligations of Member States within the context of this proposal.
events/5/summary/9
Member States, the Presidency believes that additional steps can be taken to further consolidate the agreement reached.
events/5/summary/9
Updating legislation : lastly, MEPs state that whenever subsequent legislation on environmental matters is adopted, it shall be specified whether it falls within the scope of this directive.
events/5/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading
New
Debate in Council
events/6/date
Old
2008-04-15T00:00:00
New
2008-04-08T00:00:00
events/6/docs
  • url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0154_EN.html title: A6-0154/2008
events/6/summary
  • The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted, under the 1 st reading of the codecision procedure and by a slim majority (15 votes in favour, 11 against and 2 abstentions), the report by Hartmut NASSAUER (EPP-ED, DE), adopting the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
  • Overall, MEPs sought to reintegrate the measure into the exclusive field of Community law by limiting the impact of the directive to violations of Community environmental protection law. Member States therefore will retain the power to determine which sanctions to apply to violations of said Community law. In so doing, MEPs align themselves with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling of 23 October 2007 on this matter (C-440/05).
  • The main amendments can be summarised as follows:
  • Compliance with the ECJ ruling : as a reminder, the ECJ ruling of October 2007 on this proposal stated that the EU has competence to adopt criminal measures only where there is a "justifiable need", i.e., in the area of the common transport and environment policies. Therefore, the EU may not specify the type and level of criminal sanctions (which are applicable in the Member States) to be established. MEPs therefore decided to specify that the directive obliges Member States to include in their national legislation criminal sanctions for serious violations of Community environmental protection law, without creating obligations with regard to the implementation of such sanctions or of other available legal instruments in individual cases. They also deleted from the Commission’s text an article providing for the duration and extension of the proposed sanctions.
  • Liability : MEPs state that the Directive concerns criminal liability only and is without prejudice to Community or national law, and to any rules derived therefrom, with respect to civil liability for environmental harm.
  • “Unlawful acts” : in accordance with the principle held by the ECJ, MEPs state that only acts in violation of EU environmental protection law, as listed in the annex (Annex A and B) of the Directive , shall be considered unlawful. Among the illegal offences under Community law that should be reclassified as crimes, MEPs include environmental damage caused by the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or ionising radiation on to the Earth's surface, (including bedrock) , soil or water (including rocks), the emission of radiation onto the earth's surface (including bedrock) and rocks, the disposal of waste (collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste), and the manufacture and storage of nuclear materials (MEPs state, however, that only the Euratom Treaty - and the secondary legislation enacted pursuant thereto - regulates environmental protection with regard to nuclear activity; as a result, the unlawfulness of actions which affect the environment as a result of nuclear activities can be defined only by reference to the Euratom Treaty).
  • Protected species : MEPs add more details to the meaning of “protected wild fauna and flora species” and “habitat within a protected site”. MEPs also backed the inclusion within the directive's scope of the possession, killing or trading of protected fauna and flora species, the deterioration of a habitat of a protected site (except in cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of those specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species), and the manufacture and distribution of ozone-depleting substances.
  • “Intentional acts” – “acts of negligence ”: MEPs consider that intentional acts and acts of serious negligence should be treated separately. This is consistent with the structure of Council Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA of 12 July 2005. The question whether or not the perpetrator of the damage acted intentionally or negligently should be determined by reference to the time when the perpetrator became aware, or should have been aware, of the facts constituting the offence (and not to the time when the perpetrator commenced the activity). Furthermore, they state that the prior grant of an authorisation, licence or concession should not constitute a defence in such circumstances.
  • Reports : MEPs consider that the reporting obligations that the Commission is proposing to impose on the Member States are bureaucratic and superfluous. They therefore delete the reporting obligations of Member States within the context of this proposal.
  • Updating legislation : lastly, MEPs state that whenever subsequent legislation on environmental matters is adopted, it shall be specified whether it falls within the scope of this directive.
events/6/type
Old
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
New
Vote in committee, 1st reading
events/7/date
Old
2008-05-19T00:00:00
New
2008-04-15T00:00:00
events/7/docs/0
url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0154_EN.html
title
A6-0154/2008
events/7/docs/0
url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=20080519&type=CRE
title
Debate in Parliament
events/7/type
Old
Debate in Parliament
New
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
events/8/date
Old
2008-05-21T00:00:00
New
2008-05-19T00:00:00
events/8/docs/0
url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=20080519&type=CRE
title
Debate in Parliament
events/8/docs/0
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=14907&l=en
title
Results of vote in Parliament
events/8/type
Old
Results of vote in Parliament
New
Debate in Parliament
events/9/docs/0
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=14907&l=en
title
Results of vote in Parliament
events/9/docs/0
url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2008-0215_EN.html
title
T6-0215/2008
events/9/summary
  • The European Parliament adopted a legislative resolution amending the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The report had been tabled for consideration in plenary by Hartmut NASSAUER (EPP-ED, DE) on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs.
  • The main amendments-adopted under the first reading of the codecision procedure-were the result of a compromise between the Parliament and the Council.
  • Compliance with the ECJ ruling : to recall, the ECJ ruling of October 2007 on this proposal stated that the EU has competence to adopt criminal measures only where there is a “justifiable need", i.e., in the area of the common transport and environment policies. Therefore, the EU may not specify the type and level of criminal sanctions (which are applicable in the Member States) to be established. MEPs therefore decided to specify that the directive obliges Member States to include in their national legislation criminal sanctions for serious violations of Community environmental protection law, without creating obligations with regard to the implementation of such sanctions or of other available legal instruments in individual cases. They also deleted from the Commission's text an article providing for the duration and extension of the proposed sanctions.
  • "Unlawful acts" : in accordance with the principle held by the ECJ, MEPs state that only acts in violation of EU environmental protection law, as listed in the annex (Annex A and B) of the Directive , shall be considered unlawful. Proscribed c onduct constitutes a criminal offence, when unlawful and committed intentionally or with at least serious negligence.
  • Included among the unlawful acts regarding Community law, and which must be reclassified as crimes, are environmental damage caused by substantial damage to the quality of air, water and soil and poor management of waste or even the production, storage, export and disposal of nuclear materials or other radioactive substances.
  • Inciting, aiding and abetting : Member States must ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting the intentional conduct referred to in the text is punishable as a criminal offence.
  • Protected species : Parliament added definitions for "protected wild fauna and flora species" and "habitat within a protected site". It added to the scope of the Directive the trading in specimens of protected wild fauna and flora species or parts or derivatives thereof, except in cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of those specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species. It also added production, importation, exportation, placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances to the scope.
  • Reports : MEPs consider that the reporting obligations that the Commission is proposing to impose on the Member States are bureaucratic and superfluous. They therefore delete the reporting obligations of Member States within the context of this proposal.
  • Updating legislation : lastly, MEPs state that whenever subsequent legislation on environmental matters is adopted, it shall be specified whether it falls within the scope of this directive.
  • Entry into force : the Member States should comply with the Directive within two years after it enters into force.
events/9/type
Old
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading
New
Results of vote in Parliament
events/10/body
Old
CSL
New
EP
events/10/date
Old
2008-06-05T00:00:00
New
2008-05-21T00:00:00
events/10/docs/0
url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2008-0215_EN.html
title
T6-0215/2008
events/10/docs/0
url
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2783*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008
title
2783
events/10/summary
  • The European Parliament adopted a legislative resolution amending the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The report had been tabled for consideration in plenary by Hartmut NASSAUER (EPP-ED, DE) on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs.
  • The main amendments-adopted under the first reading of the codecision procedure-were the result of a compromise between the Parliament and the Council.
  • Compliance with the ECJ ruling : to recall, the ECJ ruling of October 2007 on this proposal stated that the EU has competence to adopt criminal measures only where there is a “justifiable need", i.e., in the area of the common transport and environment policies. Therefore, the EU may not specify the type and level of criminal sanctions (which are applicable in the Member States) to be established. MEPs therefore decided to specify that the directive obliges Member States to include in their national legislation criminal sanctions for serious violations of Community environmental protection law, without creating obligations with regard to the implementation of such sanctions or of other available legal instruments in individual cases. They also deleted from the Commission's text an article providing for the duration and extension of the proposed sanctions.
  • "Unlawful acts" : in accordance with the principle held by the ECJ, MEPs state that only acts in violation of EU environmental protection law, as listed in the annex (Annex A and B) of the Directive , shall be considered unlawful. Proscribed c onduct constitutes a criminal offence, when unlawful and committed intentionally or with at least serious negligence.
  • Included among the unlawful acts regarding Community law, and which must be reclassified as crimes, are environmental damage caused by substantial damage to the quality of air, water and soil and poor management of waste or even the production, storage, export and disposal of nuclear materials or other radioactive substances.
  • Inciting, aiding and abetting : Member States must ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting the intentional conduct referred to in the text is punishable as a criminal offence.
  • Protected species : Parliament added definitions for "protected wild fauna and flora species" and "habitat within a protected site". It added to the scope of the Directive the trading in specimens of protected wild fauna and flora species or parts or derivatives thereof, except in cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of those specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species. It also added production, importation, exportation, placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances to the scope.
  • Reports : MEPs consider that the reporting obligations that the Commission is proposing to impose on the Member States are bureaucratic and superfluous. They therefore delete the reporting obligations of Member States within the context of this proposal.
  • Updating legislation : lastly, MEPs state that whenever subsequent legislation on environmental matters is adopted, it shall be specified whether it falls within the scope of this directive.
  • Entry into force : the Member States should comply with the Directive within two years after it enters into force.
events/10/type
Old
Debate in Council
New
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading
events/11/docs/0
url
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2784*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008
title
2784
events/11/docs/0
url
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2783*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008
title
2783
events/12/body
Old
EP/CSL
New
CSL
events/12/date
Old
2008-10-24T00:00:00
New
2008-06-05T00:00:00
events/12/docs
  • url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2784*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008 title: 2784
events/12/type
Old
Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading
New
Debate in Council
events/13/body
Old
CSL
New
EP/CSL
events/13/date
Old
2008-11-19T00:00:00
New
2008-10-24T00:00:00
events/13/type
Old
Final act signed
New
Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading
events/14/body
Old
EP
New
CSL
events/14/type
Old
End of procedure in Parliament
New
Final act signed
events/15/body
EP
events/15/date
Old
2008-12-06T00:00:00
New
2008-11-19T00:00:00
events/15/docs
  • title: Directive 2008/99 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32008L0099
  • title: OJ L 328 06.12.2008, p. 0028 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:328:SOM:EN:HTML
events/15/summary
  • PURPOSE: to establish measures on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
  • LEGISLATIVE ACT: Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
  • CONTENT: the Council adopted a Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law after reaching agreement with the European Parliament at first reading.
  • The new legislative act obliges Member States to provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties in their national legislation for serious infringements of provisions of Community law on the protection of the environment. These infringements include, for example:
  • the emission of materials or ionising radiation into air, soil or water; the collection, transport, recovery or disposal of waste, including the shipment of waste; the operation of a plant in which a dangerous activity is carried out or in which dangerous substances or preparations are stored or used; the production, processing, handling, use, holding, storage, transport, import, export or disposal of nuclear materials or other hazardous radioactive substances; the killing, destruction, possession or taking of specimens of protected wild fauna or flora species; the placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances.
  • Member States shall ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting the intentional conduct referred to above is punishable as a criminal offence.
  • Legal persons can be held liable for offences where such offences have been committed for their benefit by any person who has a leading position within the legal person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person.
  • ENTRY INTO FORCE: 26/12/2008.
  • TRANSPOSITION: 26/12/2010.
events/15/type
Old
Final act published in Official Journal
New
End of procedure in Parliament
events/16
date
2008-12-06T00:00:00
type
Final act published in Official Journal
summary
docs
links/National parliaments/url
Old
http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/dossier.do?code=COD&year=2007&number=0022&appLng=EN
New
https://ipexl.europarl.europa.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/code=COD&year=2007&number=0022&appLng=EN
docs/0
date
2007-02-09T00:00:00
docs
summary
type
Legislative proposal
body
EC
docs/2
date
2007-09-26T00:00:00
docs
url: https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:1248)(documentyear:2007)(documentlanguage:EN) title: CES1248/2007
type
Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report
body
ESC
docs/3
date
2007-09-26T00:00:00
docs
url: https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:1248)(documentyear:2007)(documentlanguage:EN) title: CES1248/2007
type
Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report
body
ESC
docs/3
date
2008-02-06T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE400.698 title: PE400.698
type
Committee draft report
body
EP
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:1248)(documentyear:2007)(documentlanguage:EN)
New
https://dmsearch.eesc.europa.eu/search/public?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:1248)(documentyear:2007)(documentlanguage:EN)
docs/4
date
2008-02-06T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE400.698 title: PE400.698
type
Committee draft report
body
EP
docs/4
date
2008-02-27T00:00:00
docs
title: PE400.272
committee
ENVI
type
Committee opinion
body
EP
docs/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE400.698
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE400.698
docs/4/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE400.272&secondRef=02
docs/5
date
2008-02-27T00:00:00
docs
title: PE400.272
committee
ENVI
type
Committee opinion
body
EP
docs/5
date
2008-03-14T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE404.474 title: PE404.474
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
docs/6
date
2008-03-14T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE404.474 title: PE404.474
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
docs/6
date
2008-03-27T00:00:00
docs
title: PE398.484
committee
LIBE
type
Committee opinion
body
EP
docs/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE404.474
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE404.474
docs/6/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE398.484&secondRef=02
docs/7
date
2008-03-27T00:00:00
docs
title: PE398.484
committee
LIBE
type
Committee opinion
body
EP
docs/7
date
2008-03-31T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE404.583 title: PE404.583
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
docs/8
date
2008-03-31T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE404.583 title: PE404.583
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
docs/8
date
2008-04-15T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0154_EN.html title: A6-0154/2008
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs/8/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE404.583
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE404.583
docs/9
date
2008-04-15T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0154_EN.html title: A6-0154/2008
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs/9
date
2008-06-12T00:00:00
docs
title: SP(2008)3593/2
type
Commission response to text adopted in plenary
body
EC
docs/9/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0154_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0154_EN.html
docs/9/docs/0/url
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=14907&j=0&l=en
docs/10
date
2008-06-12T00:00:00
docs
title: SP(2008)3593/2
type
Commission response to text adopted in plenary
body
EC
events/0/body
Old
EC
New
CSL
events/0/date
Old
2007-02-09T00:00:00
New
2007-02-15T00:00:00
events/0/docs/0
url
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2781*&MEET_DATE=15/02/2007
title
2781
events/0/docs/0
url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2007/0051/COM_COM(2007)0051_EN.pdf
title
COM(2007)0051
events/0/docs/1
url
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2007&nu_doc=51
title
EUR-Lex
events/0/summary/0
The Commission presented to the Council information concerning the recent Commission proposal for a Directive which would oblige Member States to treat serious offences against the environment as criminal acts and would ensure that they are effectively sanctioned. The proposal also sets minimum sanctions for environmental crimes across the Member States.
events/0/summary/0
PURPOSE : to ensure criminal sanctions for certain conduct related to protection of the environment.
events/0/summary/1
To recall, in September 2005, the European Court of Justice confirmed that the Community had the competence to oblige Member States to adopt criminal law measures for the protection of the environment if necessary to ensure the efficient implementation of its environmental policy. For this reason it annulled the Framework Decision on environmental crime adopted in 2003 by the Council on the basis of a Member State initiative based on the provisions for judicial cooperation in criminal matters contained in the EU Treaty (Title VI, so called 3rd pillar).
events/0/summary/1
PROPOSED ACT : Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
events/0/summary/2
The Commission’s new proposal therefore is designed to replace both the Council's Framework Decision of 2003 and a proposal for a directive already presented by the Commission in 2001, which the Council rejected when adopting the 2003 Framework Decision.
events/0/summary/2
CONTENT : This proposal replaces the proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law (please refer to COD/2001/0076 and its accompanying fact sheet). This proposal comes about as a result of the findings of the European Court of Justice in its judgment of 13 September 2005 (C- 176/03, Commission v Council) which annulled the Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
events/0/summary/3
Member States would be required to ensure that a range of activities (e.g. illegal shipment of waste and unlawful trade in endangered species or in ozone-depleting substances) already prohibited by EU or national legislation are considered criminal offences, when committed intentionally or with serious negligence. Member states would have to ensure that particularly serious environmental crimes are punishable by a maximum of at least 5 years imprisonment and fines for companies of at least EUR 750 000. These cases would include crimes that have resulted in death or serious injury of a person or substantial damage to air, soil, water, animals or plants, or when the offence has been committed by a criminal organisation.
events/0/summary/3
According to the judgment, the Community may take measures relating to the criminal law of the Member States which it considers necessary in order to ensure that the rules it lays down on environmental protection are fully effective. Studies have shown that the sanctions currently in place in the Member States are not always sufficient to implement effectively the Community's policy on environmental protection. Criminal sanctions are not in force in all Member States for all serious environmental offences, even though only criminal penalties will have a sufficiently dissuasive effect Apart from the fact that the types of sanctions applicable differ from Member State to Member State, there are also significant differences regarding the levels of sanctions that are applied to similar or identical offences. The impact of environmental crime often crosses borders. Offenders are therefore currently in a position to exploit the existing differences between Member States' legislation to their advantage. The problem needs to be addressed through action at Community level.
events/0/summary/4
In addition, the proposed directive provides for supplementary or alternative sanctions, such as the obligation to clean up/reinstate the environment or the possibility of stopping businesses from operating.
events/0/summary/4
Main elements of the proposal: the proposed directive establishes a minimum set of serious environmental offences that should be considered criminal throughout the Community when committed intentionally or with at least serious negligence. Participation in and instigation of such activities should equally be considered a criminal offence. The scope of liability of legal persons is defined in detail. The offences should be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions for natural persons, whereas criminal or non-criminal sanctions shall be applied to legal persons.
events/0/summary/5
Lastly, the proposed measures will ensure that criminals cannot exploit the significant differences which currently exist between the Member States. Loopholes in the action against environmental crime should therefore no longer exist within the European Union.
events/0/summary/5
For offences committed under certain aggravating circumstances, such as having caused a particularly serious result or the involvement of a criminal organisation, the minimum level of maximum sanctions for natural and legal persons is subject to approximation, too.
events/0/summary/6
Definition of offences: this corresponds largely to the definitions set out in the Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA (see CNS/2000/0801 ) while taking into consideration some amendments of the European Parliament made to the original directive proposal and accepted by the Commission after the first reading . All offences but one require their "unlawful" commission, "unlawful" being defined as infringing Community or Member States legislation, administrative regulations or decisions by a competent authority aiming at the protection of the environment. Offences include the illegal shipment of waste as defined in Regulation 1013/2006/EC for profit and in a non-negligible quantity, and the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials into air, soil or water, which causes death or serious injury to any person. They also include the unlawful significant deterioration of a protected habitat.
events/0/summary/7
Liability of legal persons: Member States should ensure that legal persons can be held liable for offences where such offences have been committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, who has a leading position within the legal person. A legal person can also be held liable where the lack of supervision or control has made possible the commission of an offence for the benefit of that legal person by a person under its authority. Liability of a legal person must not exclude criminal proceedings against natural persons who are perpetrators, instigators or accessories in the offences referred to.
events/0/summary/8
Sanctions: Member States must ensure that the commission of the offences is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions. Where certain offences are committed with serious negligence and cause substantial damage to air, soil, water, animals or plants, they must be punishable by a maximum of at least between one and three years imprisonment. This increases by a length of at least between two and five years imprisonment, and between five and ten years imprisonment depending on the severity of the offence and the mental element i.e whether offences were intentionally committed.
events/0/summary/9
For legal persons, these must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, and must include criminal or non-criminal fines. For legal persons, there are three levels of fines: between EUR 300 000 and EUR 500 000; and between EUR 500 000 and EUR 750 000; and between EUR 750 000 and EUR 1 500 000 in cases where the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or ionising radiation into air, soil or water, or any other prescribed offence intentionally causes death or serious injury to any person.
events/0/summary/10
Alternative sanctions are suggested for both natural and legal persons. Such sanctions may be more effective than imprisonment or fines in many cases and include the obligation to reinstate the environment, the placing under judicial supervision, the ban on engaging in commercial activities or the publication of judicial decisions. Even though in many cases confiscation of crime-related objects will be an essential tool, the inclusion of a specific provision has not been considered necessary, as most of the serious environmental offences will be covered by the scope of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property.
events/0/type
Old
Legislative proposal published
New
Debate in Council
events/1/body
Old
CSL
New
EP
events/1/date
Old
2007-02-15T00:00:00
New
2007-03-15T00:00:00
events/1/docs
  • url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2781*&MEET_DATE=15/02/2007 title: 2781
events/1/summary
  • The Commission presented to the Council information concerning the recent Commission proposal for a Directive which would oblige Member States to treat serious offences against the environment as criminal acts and would ensure that they are effectively sanctioned. The proposal also sets minimum sanctions for environmental crimes across the Member States.
  • To recall, in September 2005, the European Court of Justice confirmed that the Community had the competence to oblige Member States to adopt criminal law measures for the protection of the environment if necessary to ensure the efficient implementation of its environmental policy. For this reason it annulled the Framework Decision on environmental crime adopted in 2003 by the Council on the basis of a Member State initiative based on the provisions for judicial cooperation in criminal matters contained in the EU Treaty (Title VI, so called 3rd pillar).
  • The Commission’s new proposal therefore is designed to replace both the Council's Framework Decision of 2003 and a proposal for a directive already presented by the Commission in 2001, which the Council rejected when adopting the 2003 Framework Decision.
  • Member States would be required to ensure that a range of activities (e.g. illegal shipment of waste and unlawful trade in endangered species or in ozone-depleting substances) already prohibited by EU or national legislation are considered criminal offences, when committed intentionally or with serious negligence. Member states would have to ensure that particularly serious environmental crimes are punishable by a maximum of at least 5 years imprisonment and fines for companies of at least EUR 750 000. These cases would include crimes that have resulted in death or serious injury of a person or substantial damage to air, soil, water, animals or plants, or when the offence has been committed by a criminal organisation.
  • In addition, the proposed directive provides for supplementary or alternative sanctions, such as the obligation to clean up/reinstate the environment or the possibility of stopping businesses from operating.
  • Lastly, the proposed measures will ensure that criminals cannot exploit the significant differences which currently exist between the Member States. Loopholes in the action against environmental crime should therefore no longer exist within the European Union.
events/1/type
Old
Debate in Council
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
events/2/body
Old
EP
New
CSL
events/2/date
Old
2007-03-15T00:00:00
New
2007-06-12T00:00:00
events/2/docs
  • url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2807*&MEET_DATE=12/06/2007 title: 2807
events/2/summary
  • The Council took note of a Presidency report on the state of play of the proposal for a Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
  • The Presidency took up the proposal for a Directive at the earliest opportunity and arranged for its timely discussion in the Working Party on Substantive Criminal Law. Three working party meetings have taken place to date, all of which were marked by constructive cooperation between the Member States and the Commission. Discussions are currently focusing on drawing up the criminal offences (Article 3 in conjunction with Article 2(a)). Here there are some fundamental issues to be clarified, on the basis of the European Court of Justice's judgment of 13 September 2005. It has to be decided, for example, whether the Community legislator should confine itself to ensuring, by criminal law means, the enforcement of Community law or of such national law that transposes Community law, or whether the Directive should also apply to purely national environmental law. The clear attitude is emerging among the Member States that only violations of Community environmental legislation should be covered by the Directive.
  • Discussions on the rules on sanctions (Articles 5 and 7) should, in the unanimous view of the Member States, be postponed until the European Court of Justice has ruled on the Commission's action for annulment of the Framework Decision to strengthen the criminal law framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution. That Framework Decision contains detailed rules on sanctions that are comparable to those in the proposal for a Directive. The Court of Justice is expected to give its ruling towards the end of 2007.
  • Further discussions on the matter will take place under the Portuguese Presidency.
events/2/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Debate in Council
events/3/body
Old
CSL
New
EP
events/3/date
Old
2007-06-12T00:00:00
New
2007-07-12T00:00:00
events/3/docs
  • url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2807*&MEET_DATE=12/06/2007 title: 2807
events/3/summary
  • The Council took note of a Presidency report on the state of play of the proposal for a Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
  • The Presidency took up the proposal for a Directive at the earliest opportunity and arranged for its timely discussion in the Working Party on Substantive Criminal Law. Three working party meetings have taken place to date, all of which were marked by constructive cooperation between the Member States and the Commission. Discussions are currently focusing on drawing up the criminal offences (Article 3 in conjunction with Article 2(a)). Here there are some fundamental issues to be clarified, on the basis of the European Court of Justice's judgment of 13 September 2005. It has to be decided, for example, whether the Community legislator should confine itself to ensuring, by criminal law means, the enforcement of Community law or of such national law that transposes Community law, or whether the Directive should also apply to purely national environmental law. The clear attitude is emerging among the Member States that only violations of Community environmental legislation should be covered by the Directive.
  • Discussions on the rules on sanctions (Articles 5 and 7) should, in the unanimous view of the Member States, be postponed until the European Court of Justice has ruled on the Commission's action for annulment of the Framework Decision to strengthen the criminal law framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution. That Framework Decision contains detailed rules on sanctions that are comparable to those in the proposal for a Directive. The Court of Justice is expected to give its ruling towards the end of 2007.
  • Further discussions on the matter will take place under the Portuguese Presidency.
events/3/type
Old
Debate in Council
New
Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
events/4/body
Old
EP
New
CSL
events/4/date
Old
2007-07-12T00:00:00
New
2007-12-20T00:00:00
events/4/docs
  • url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2842*&MEET_DATE=20/12/2007 title: 2842
events/4/summary
  • On 20 December 2007, the delegations became aware of a document for information issued by the Presidency (within the framework of “other points” of the Environment Council) on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental protection through criminal law.
  • In this context, the Council recalls that, on 9 February 2007, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive on environmental protection through criminal law, which is of particular importance for the Member States of the European Union.
  • They consider that a uniform level of protection throughout Europe in the field of environmental criminal law is both necessary and appropriate. The Member States had already made this clear by agreeing on the Framework Decision on the protection of the environment through criminal law (see CNS/2000/0801 ), which was annulled on grounds of lack of competence by the European Court of Justice in its judgment of 13 September 2005 (on this point, refer to the file synopsis on “ Environmental protection: combating crime, criminal offences and penalties ”). The proposal for a Directive is intended to replace the annulled Framework Decision and thus fill a gap in the area of environmental protection through criminal law.
  • The Presidency continued the work initiated by the German Presidency, regarding this proposal as fundamental for the development of the protection of the environment. Six working party meetings have taken place to date, all of which were marked by constructive cooperation among the Member States and the Commission.
  • General consensus was reached among Member States on the inclusion of an Annex with the list of Community legislation, infringement of which results in unlawful conduct pursuant to Article 2(a) of the proposed Directive.
  • Following the decision taken by the Court of Justice on 23 October in Case C-440/05 pertaining to enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution, and the political framework set out by the Ministers of Justice at the lunch on 9 November, the working party reached broad agreement on the majority of the directive’s articles. Broad consensus was reached in the discussion on Articles 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Proposal, with only a very limited number of scrutiny reservations remaining, lodged by some Member States and by the Commission.
  • Notwithstanding the above, outstanding issues remain, in particular regarding Article 2, subparagraph c), and Article 3, subparagraphs a), b), f), e) and h), which essentially concern criminal policy decisions.
  • Contacts took place with the European Parliament with a view to facilitating a first reading agreement in the first half of 2008. The Presidency met the rapporteurs of the two committees involved in the co-decision procedure and took note of the European Parliament's high level of ambition.
  • Given the considerable progress made regarding this directive and the generally favourable view of the aims of the instrument and the contributions made by the
  • Member States, the Presidency believes that additional steps can be taken to further consolidate the agreement reached.
events/4/type
Old
Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
New
Debate in Council
events/5/body
Old
CSL
New
EP
events/5/date
Old
2007-12-20T00:00:00
New
2008-04-08T00:00:00
events/5/docs
  • url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2842*&MEET_DATE=20/12/2007 title: 2842
events/5/summary/0
The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted, under the 1 st reading of the codecision procedure and by a slim majority (15 votes in favour, 11 against and 2 abstentions), the report by Hartmut NASSAUER (EPP-ED, DE), adopting the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
events/5/summary/0
On 20 December 2007, the delegations became aware of a document for information issued by the Presidency (within the framework of “other points” of the Environment Council) on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental protection through criminal law.
events/5/summary/1
Overall, MEPs sought to reintegrate the measure into the exclusive field of Community law by limiting the impact of the directive to violations of Community environmental protection law. Member States therefore will retain the power to determine which sanctions to apply to violations of said Community law. In so doing, MEPs align themselves with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling of 23 October 2007 on this matter (C-440/05).
events/5/summary/1
In this context, the Council recalls that, on 9 February 2007, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive on environmental protection through criminal law, which is of particular importance for the Member States of the European Union.
events/5/summary/2
The main amendments can be summarised as follows:
events/5/summary/2
They consider that a uniform level of protection throughout Europe in the field of environmental criminal law is both necessary and appropriate. The Member States had already made this clear by agreeing on the Framework Decision on the protection of the environment through criminal law (see CNS/2000/0801 ), which was annulled on grounds of lack of competence by the European Court of Justice in its judgment of 13 September 2005 (on this point, refer to the file synopsis on “ Environmental protection: combating crime, criminal offences and penalties ”). The proposal for a Directive is intended to replace the annulled Framework Decision and thus fill a gap in the area of environmental protection through criminal law.
events/5/summary/3
Compliance with the ECJ ruling : as a reminder, the ECJ ruling of October 2007 on this proposal stated that the EU has competence to adopt criminal measures only where there is a "justifiable need", i.e., in the area of the common transport and environment policies. Therefore, the EU may not specify the type and level of criminal sanctions (which are applicable in the Member States) to be established. MEPs therefore decided to specify that the directive obliges Member States to include in their national legislation criminal sanctions for serious violations of Community environmental protection law, without creating obligations with regard to the implementation of such sanctions or of other available legal instruments in individual cases. They also deleted from the Commission’s text an article providing for the duration and extension of the proposed sanctions.
events/5/summary/3
The Presidency continued the work initiated by the German Presidency, regarding this proposal as fundamental for the development of the protection of the environment. Six working party meetings have taken place to date, all of which were marked by constructive cooperation among the Member States and the Commission.
events/5/summary/4
Liability : MEPs state that the Directive concerns criminal liability only and is without prejudice to Community or national law, and to any rules derived therefrom, with respect to civil liability for environmental harm.
events/5/summary/4
General consensus was reached among Member States on the inclusion of an Annex with the list of Community legislation, infringement of which results in unlawful conduct pursuant to Article 2(a) of the proposed Directive.
events/5/summary/5
“Unlawful acts” : in accordance with the principle held by the ECJ, MEPs state that only acts in violation of EU environmental protection law, as listed in the annex (Annex A and B) of the Directive , shall be considered unlawful. Among the illegal offences under Community law that should be reclassified as crimes, MEPs include environmental damage caused by the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or ionising radiation on to the Earth's surface, (including bedrock) , soil or water (including rocks), the emission of radiation onto the earth's surface (including bedrock) and rocks, the disposal of waste (collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste), and the manufacture and storage of nuclear materials (MEPs state, however, that only the Euratom Treaty - and the secondary legislation enacted pursuant thereto - regulates environmental protection with regard to nuclear activity; as a result, the unlawfulness of actions which affect the environment as a result of nuclear activities can be defined only by reference to the Euratom Treaty).
events/5/summary/5
Following the decision taken by the Court of Justice on 23 October in Case C-440/05 pertaining to enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution, and the political framework set out by the Ministers of Justice at the lunch on 9 November, the working party reached broad agreement on the majority of the directive’s articles. Broad consensus was reached in the discussion on Articles 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Proposal, with only a very limited number of scrutiny reservations remaining, lodged by some Member States and by the Commission.
events/5/summary/6
Protected species : MEPs add more details to the meaning of “protected wild fauna and flora species” and “habitat within a protected site”. MEPs also backed the inclusion within the directive's scope of the possession, killing or trading of protected fauna and flora species, the deterioration of a habitat of a protected site (except in cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of those specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species), and the manufacture and distribution of ozone-depleting substances.
events/5/summary/6
Notwithstanding the above, outstanding issues remain, in particular regarding Article 2, subparagraph c), and Article 3, subparagraphs a), b), f), e) and h), which essentially concern criminal policy decisions.
events/5/summary/7
“Intentional acts” – “acts of negligence ”: MEPs consider that intentional acts and acts of serious negligence should be treated separately. This is consistent with the structure of Council Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA of 12 July 2005. The question whether or not the perpetrator of the damage acted intentionally or negligently should be determined by reference to the time when the perpetrator became aware, or should have been aware, of the facts constituting the offence (and not to the time when the perpetrator commenced the activity). Furthermore, they state that the prior grant of an authorisation, licence or concession should not constitute a defence in such circumstances.
events/5/summary/7
Contacts took place with the European Parliament with a view to facilitating a first reading agreement in the first half of 2008. The Presidency met the rapporteurs of the two committees involved in the co-decision procedure and took note of the European Parliament's high level of ambition.
events/5/summary/8
Reports : MEPs consider that the reporting obligations that the Commission is proposing to impose on the Member States are bureaucratic and superfluous. They therefore delete the reporting obligations of Member States within the context of this proposal.
events/5/summary/8
Given the considerable progress made regarding this directive and the generally favourable view of the aims of the instrument and the contributions made by the
events/5/summary/9
Updating legislation : lastly, MEPs state that whenever subsequent legislation on environmental matters is adopted, it shall be specified whether it falls within the scope of this directive.
events/5/summary/9
Member States, the Presidency believes that additional steps can be taken to further consolidate the agreement reached.
events/5/type
Old
Debate in Council
New
Vote in committee, 1st reading
events/6/date
Old
2008-04-08T00:00:00
New
2008-04-15T00:00:00
events/6/docs
  • url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0154_EN.html title: A6-0154/2008
events/6/summary
  • The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted, under the 1 st reading of the codecision procedure and by a slim majority (15 votes in favour, 11 against and 2 abstentions), the report by Hartmut NASSAUER (EPP-ED, DE), adopting the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
  • Overall, MEPs sought to reintegrate the measure into the exclusive field of Community law by limiting the impact of the directive to violations of Community environmental protection law. Member States therefore will retain the power to determine which sanctions to apply to violations of said Community law. In so doing, MEPs align themselves with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling of 23 October 2007 on this matter (C-440/05).
  • The main amendments can be summarised as follows:
  • Compliance with the ECJ ruling : as a reminder, the ECJ ruling of October 2007 on this proposal stated that the EU has competence to adopt criminal measures only where there is a "justifiable need", i.e., in the area of the common transport and environment policies. Therefore, the EU may not specify the type and level of criminal sanctions (which are applicable in the Member States) to be established. MEPs therefore decided to specify that the directive obliges Member States to include in their national legislation criminal sanctions for serious violations of Community environmental protection law, without creating obligations with regard to the implementation of such sanctions or of other available legal instruments in individual cases. They also deleted from the Commission’s text an article providing for the duration and extension of the proposed sanctions.
  • Liability : MEPs state that the Directive concerns criminal liability only and is without prejudice to Community or national law, and to any rules derived therefrom, with respect to civil liability for environmental harm.
  • “Unlawful acts” : in accordance with the principle held by the ECJ, MEPs state that only acts in violation of EU environmental protection law, as listed in the annex (Annex A and B) of the Directive , shall be considered unlawful. Among the illegal offences under Community law that should be reclassified as crimes, MEPs include environmental damage caused by the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or ionising radiation on to the Earth's surface, (including bedrock) , soil or water (including rocks), the emission of radiation onto the earth's surface (including bedrock) and rocks, the disposal of waste (collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste), and the manufacture and storage of nuclear materials (MEPs state, however, that only the Euratom Treaty - and the secondary legislation enacted pursuant thereto - regulates environmental protection with regard to nuclear activity; as a result, the unlawfulness of actions which affect the environment as a result of nuclear activities can be defined only by reference to the Euratom Treaty).
  • Protected species : MEPs add more details to the meaning of “protected wild fauna and flora species” and “habitat within a protected site”. MEPs also backed the inclusion within the directive's scope of the possession, killing or trading of protected fauna and flora species, the deterioration of a habitat of a protected site (except in cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of those specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species), and the manufacture and distribution of ozone-depleting substances.
  • “Intentional acts” – “acts of negligence ”: MEPs consider that intentional acts and acts of serious negligence should be treated separately. This is consistent with the structure of Council Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA of 12 July 2005. The question whether or not the perpetrator of the damage acted intentionally or negligently should be determined by reference to the time when the perpetrator became aware, or should have been aware, of the facts constituting the offence (and not to the time when the perpetrator commenced the activity). Furthermore, they state that the prior grant of an authorisation, licence or concession should not constitute a defence in such circumstances.
  • Reports : MEPs consider that the reporting obligations that the Commission is proposing to impose on the Member States are bureaucratic and superfluous. They therefore delete the reporting obligations of Member States within the context of this proposal.
  • Updating legislation : lastly, MEPs state that whenever subsequent legislation on environmental matters is adopted, it shall be specified whether it falls within the scope of this directive.
events/6/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
events/7/date
Old
2008-04-15T00:00:00
New
2008-05-19T00:00:00
events/7/docs/0
url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=20080519&type=CRE
title
Debate in Parliament
events/7/docs/0
url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0154_EN.html
title
A6-0154/2008
events/7/type
Old
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
New
Debate in Parliament
events/8/date
Old
2008-05-19T00:00:00
New
2008-05-21T00:00:00
events/8/docs/0
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=14907&l=en
title
Results of vote in Parliament
events/8/docs/0
url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20080519&type=CRE
title
Debate in Parliament
events/8/type
Old
Debate in Parliament
New
Results of vote in Parliament
events/9/docs/0
url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2008-0215_EN.html
title
T6-0215/2008
events/9/docs/0
url
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=14907&l=en
title
Results of vote in Parliament
events/9/summary
  • The European Parliament adopted a legislative resolution amending the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The report had been tabled for consideration in plenary by Hartmut NASSAUER (EPP-ED, DE) on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs.
  • The main amendments-adopted under the first reading of the codecision procedure-were the result of a compromise between the Parliament and the Council.
  • Compliance with the ECJ ruling : to recall, the ECJ ruling of October 2007 on this proposal stated that the EU has competence to adopt criminal measures only where there is a “justifiable need", i.e., in the area of the common transport and environment policies. Therefore, the EU may not specify the type and level of criminal sanctions (which are applicable in the Member States) to be established. MEPs therefore decided to specify that the directive obliges Member States to include in their national legislation criminal sanctions for serious violations of Community environmental protection law, without creating obligations with regard to the implementation of such sanctions or of other available legal instruments in individual cases. They also deleted from the Commission's text an article providing for the duration and extension of the proposed sanctions.
  • "Unlawful acts" : in accordance with the principle held by the ECJ, MEPs state that only acts in violation of EU environmental protection law, as listed in the annex (Annex A and B) of the Directive , shall be considered unlawful. Proscribed c onduct constitutes a criminal offence, when unlawful and committed intentionally or with at least serious negligence.
  • Included among the unlawful acts regarding Community law, and which must be reclassified as crimes, are environmental damage caused by substantial damage to the quality of air, water and soil and poor management of waste or even the production, storage, export and disposal of nuclear materials or other radioactive substances.
  • Inciting, aiding and abetting : Member States must ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting the intentional conduct referred to in the text is punishable as a criminal offence.
  • Protected species : Parliament added definitions for "protected wild fauna and flora species" and "habitat within a protected site". It added to the scope of the Directive the trading in specimens of protected wild fauna and flora species or parts or derivatives thereof, except in cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of those specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species. It also added production, importation, exportation, placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances to the scope.
  • Reports : MEPs consider that the reporting obligations that the Commission is proposing to impose on the Member States are bureaucratic and superfluous. They therefore delete the reporting obligations of Member States within the context of this proposal.
  • Updating legislation : lastly, MEPs state that whenever subsequent legislation on environmental matters is adopted, it shall be specified whether it falls within the scope of this directive.
  • Entry into force : the Member States should comply with the Directive within two years after it enters into force.
events/9/type
Old
Results of vote in Parliament
New
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading
events/10/body
Old
EP
New
CSL
events/10/date
Old
2008-05-21T00:00:00
New
2008-06-05T00:00:00
events/10/docs/0
url
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2783*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008
title
2783
events/10/docs/0
url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2008-0215_EN.html
title
T6-0215/2008
events/10/summary
  • The European Parliament adopted a legislative resolution amending the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The report had been tabled for consideration in plenary by Hartmut NASSAUER (EPP-ED, DE) on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs.
  • The main amendments-adopted under the first reading of the codecision procedure-were the result of a compromise between the Parliament and the Council.
  • Compliance with the ECJ ruling : to recall, the ECJ ruling of October 2007 on this proposal stated that the EU has competence to adopt criminal measures only where there is a “justifiable need", i.e., in the area of the common transport and environment policies. Therefore, the EU may not specify the type and level of criminal sanctions (which are applicable in the Member States) to be established. MEPs therefore decided to specify that the directive obliges Member States to include in their national legislation criminal sanctions for serious violations of Community environmental protection law, without creating obligations with regard to the implementation of such sanctions or of other available legal instruments in individual cases. They also deleted from the Commission's text an article providing for the duration and extension of the proposed sanctions.
  • "Unlawful acts" : in accordance with the principle held by the ECJ, MEPs state that only acts in violation of EU environmental protection law, as listed in the annex (Annex A and B) of the Directive , shall be considered unlawful. Proscribed c onduct constitutes a criminal offence, when unlawful and committed intentionally or with at least serious negligence.
  • Included among the unlawful acts regarding Community law, and which must be reclassified as crimes, are environmental damage caused by substantial damage to the quality of air, water and soil and poor management of waste or even the production, storage, export and disposal of nuclear materials or other radioactive substances.
  • Inciting, aiding and abetting : Member States must ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting the intentional conduct referred to in the text is punishable as a criminal offence.
  • Protected species : Parliament added definitions for "protected wild fauna and flora species" and "habitat within a protected site". It added to the scope of the Directive the trading in specimens of protected wild fauna and flora species or parts or derivatives thereof, except in cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of those specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species. It also added production, importation, exportation, placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances to the scope.
  • Reports : MEPs consider that the reporting obligations that the Commission is proposing to impose on the Member States are bureaucratic and superfluous. They therefore delete the reporting obligations of Member States within the context of this proposal.
  • Updating legislation : lastly, MEPs state that whenever subsequent legislation on environmental matters is adopted, it shall be specified whether it falls within the scope of this directive.
  • Entry into force : the Member States should comply with the Directive within two years after it enters into force.
events/10/type
Old
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Debate in Council
events/11/docs/0
url
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2783*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008
title
2783
events/11/docs/0
url
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2784*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008
title
2784
events/12/body
Old
CSL
New
EP/CSL
events/12/date
Old
2008-06-05T00:00:00
New
2008-10-24T00:00:00
events/12/docs
  • url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2784*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008 title: 2784
events/12/type
Old
Debate in Council
New
Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading
events/13/body
Old
EP/CSL
New
CSL
events/13/date
Old
2008-10-24T00:00:00
New
2008-11-19T00:00:00
events/13/type
Old
Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading
New
Final act signed
events/14/body
Old
CSL
New
EP
events/14/type
Old
Final act signed
New
End of procedure in Parliament
events/15/body
EP
events/15/date
Old
2008-11-19T00:00:00
New
2008-12-06T00:00:00
events/15/docs
  • title: Directive 2008/99 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32008L0099
  • title: OJ L 328 06.12.2008, p. 0028 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:328:SOM:EN:HTML
events/15/summary
  • PURPOSE: to establish measures on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
  • LEGISLATIVE ACT: Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
  • CONTENT: the Council adopted a Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law after reaching agreement with the European Parliament at first reading.
  • The new legislative act obliges Member States to provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties in their national legislation for serious infringements of provisions of Community law on the protection of the environment. These infringements include, for example:
  • the emission of materials or ionising radiation into air, soil or water; the collection, transport, recovery or disposal of waste, including the shipment of waste; the operation of a plant in which a dangerous activity is carried out or in which dangerous substances or preparations are stored or used; the production, processing, handling, use, holding, storage, transport, import, export or disposal of nuclear materials or other hazardous radioactive substances; the killing, destruction, possession or taking of specimens of protected wild fauna or flora species; the placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances.
  • Member States shall ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting the intentional conduct referred to above is punishable as a criminal offence.
  • Legal persons can be held liable for offences where such offences have been committed for their benefit by any person who has a leading position within the legal person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person.
  • ENTRY INTO FORCE: 26/12/2008.
  • TRANSPOSITION: 26/12/2010.
events/15/type
Old
End of procedure in Parliament
New
Final act published in Official Journal
events/16
date
2008-12-06T00:00:00
type
Final act published in Official Journal
summary
docs
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: NASSAUER Hartmut date: 2007-04-10T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2007-04-10T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: NASSAUER Hartmut group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
committee
ENVI
rapporteur
name: JØRGENSEN Dan date: 2007-05-24T00:00:00 group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
committee
ENVI
date
2007-05-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: JØRGENSEN Dan group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: HERRERO-TEJEDOR Luis date: 2007-03-20T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
date
2007-03-20T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: HERRERO-TEJEDOR Luis group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2007/0160/COM_SEC(2007)0160_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2007/0160/COM_SEC(2007)0160_EN.pdf
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2007/0161/COM_SEC(2007)0161_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2007/0161/COM_SEC(2007)0161_EN.pdf
docs/8/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-154&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0154_EN.html
docs/9/body
EC
events/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2007/0051/COM_COM(2007)0051_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2007/0051/COM_COM(2007)0051_EN.pdf
events/7/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-154&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0154_EN.html
events/10/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-215
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2008-0215_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2007-02-09T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2007/0051/COM_COM(2007)0051_EN.pdf title: COM(2007)0051 type: Legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:52007PC0051:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment Commissioner: DIMAS Stavros type: Legislative proposal published
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2781 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2781*&MEET_DATE=15/02/2007 type: Debate in Council title: 2781 council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) date: 2007-02-15T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2007-03-15T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: ENVI date: 2007-05-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PSE name: JØRGENSEN Dan body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2007-04-10T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: NASSAUER Hartmut body: EP responsible: False committee: LIBE date: 2007-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: HERRERO-TEJEDOR Luis
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2807 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2807*&MEET_DATE=12/06/2007 type: Debate in Council title: 2807 council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) date: 2007-06-12T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2007-07-12T00:00:00 body: EP type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2842 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2842*&MEET_DATE=20/12/2007 type: Debate in Council title: 2842 council: Environment date: 2007-12-20T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2008-04-08T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: ENVI date: 2007-05-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PSE name: JØRGENSEN Dan body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2007-04-10T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: NASSAUER Hartmut body: EP responsible: False committee: LIBE date: 2007-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: HERRERO-TEJEDOR Luis type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2008-04-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-154&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A6-0154/2008 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: ENVI date: 2007-05-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PSE name: JØRGENSEN Dan body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2007-04-10T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: NASSAUER Hartmut body: EP responsible: False committee: LIBE date: 2007-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: HERRERO-TEJEDOR Luis type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2008-05-19T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20080519&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2008-05-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=14907&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-215 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0215/2008 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2784 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2784*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008 type: Debate in Council title: 2784 council: Environment date: 2008-06-05T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2008-10-24T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 2899
  • date: 2008-10-24T00:00:00 body: EP/CSL type: Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading
  • date: 2008-11-19T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Final act signed
  • date: 2008-11-19T00:00:00 body: EP type: End of procedure in Parliament
  • date: 2008-12-06T00:00:00 type: Final act published in Official Journal docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32008L0099 title: Directive 2008/99 url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:328:SOM:EN:HTML title: OJ L 328 06.12.2008, p. 0028
commission
  • body: EC dg: Environment commissioner: DIMAS Stavros
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2007-04-10T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: NASSAUER Hartmut group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
ENVI
date
2007-05-24T00:00:00
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: PSE name: JØRGENSEN Dan
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
committee
ENVI
date
2007-05-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: JØRGENSEN Dan group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
JURI
date
2007-04-10T00:00:00
committee_full
Legal Affairs (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: PPE-DE name: NASSAUER Hartmut
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
date
2007-03-20T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: HERRERO-TEJEDOR Luis group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
LIBE
date
2007-03-20T00:00:00
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
rapporteur
group: PPE-DE name: HERRERO-TEJEDOR Luis
council
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 2899 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2899*&MEET_DATE=24/10/2008 date: 2008-10-24T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Environment meeting_id: 2784 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2784*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008 date: 2008-06-05T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 2783 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2783*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008 date: 2008-06-05T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Environment meeting_id: 2842 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2842*&MEET_DATE=20/12/2007 date: 2007-12-20T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 2807 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2807*&MEET_DATE=12/06/2007 date: 2007-06-12T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 2781 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2781*&MEET_DATE=15/02/2007 date: 2007-02-15T00:00:00
docs
  • date: 2007-02-09T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2007/0160/COM_SEC(2007)0160_EN.pdf title: SEC(2007)0160 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=SECfinal&an_doc=2007&nu_doc=160 title: EUR-Lex type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2007-02-09T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2007/0161/COM_SEC(2007)0161_EN.pdf title: SEC(2007)0161 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=SECfinal&an_doc=2007&nu_doc=161 title: EUR-Lex type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2007-09-26T00:00:00 docs: url: https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:1248)(documentyear:2007)(documentlanguage:EN) title: CES1248/2007 type: Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report body: ESC
  • date: 2008-02-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE400.698 title: PE400.698 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2008-02-27T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE400.272&secondRef=02 title: PE400.272 committee: ENVI type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2008-03-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE404.474 title: PE404.474 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2008-03-27T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE398.484&secondRef=02 title: PE398.484 committee: LIBE type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2008-03-31T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE404.583 title: PE404.583 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2008-04-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-154&language=EN title: A6-0154/2008 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2008-06-12T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=14907&j=0&l=en title: SP(2008)3593/2 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
  • date: 2008-11-19T00:00:00 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=[%n4]%2F08&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 03639/2008/LEX type: Draft final act body: CSL
events
  • date: 2007-02-09T00:00:00 type: Legislative proposal published body: EC docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2007/0051/COM_COM(2007)0051_EN.pdf title: COM(2007)0051 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2007&nu_doc=51 title: EUR-Lex summary: PURPOSE : to ensure criminal sanctions for certain conduct related to protection of the environment. PROPOSED ACT : Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council CONTENT : This proposal replaces the proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law (please refer to COD/2001/0076 and its accompanying fact sheet). This proposal comes about as a result of the findings of the European Court of Justice in its judgment of 13 September 2005 (C- 176/03, Commission v Council) which annulled the Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA on the protection of the environment through criminal law. According to the judgment, the Community may take measures relating to the criminal law of the Member States which it considers necessary in order to ensure that the rules it lays down on environmental protection are fully effective. Studies have shown that the sanctions currently in place in the Member States are not always sufficient to implement effectively the Community's policy on environmental protection. Criminal sanctions are not in force in all Member States for all serious environmental offences, even though only criminal penalties will have a sufficiently dissuasive effect Apart from the fact that the types of sanctions applicable differ from Member State to Member State, there are also significant differences regarding the levels of sanctions that are applied to similar or identical offences. The impact of environmental crime often crosses borders. Offenders are therefore currently in a position to exploit the existing differences between Member States' legislation to their advantage. The problem needs to be addressed through action at Community level. Main elements of the proposal: the proposed directive establishes a minimum set of serious environmental offences that should be considered criminal throughout the Community when committed intentionally or with at least serious negligence. Participation in and instigation of such activities should equally be considered a criminal offence. The scope of liability of legal persons is defined in detail. The offences should be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions for natural persons, whereas criminal or non-criminal sanctions shall be applied to legal persons. For offences committed under certain aggravating circumstances, such as having caused a particularly serious result or the involvement of a criminal organisation, the minimum level of maximum sanctions for natural and legal persons is subject to approximation, too. Definition of offences: this corresponds largely to the definitions set out in the Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA (see CNS/2000/0801 ) while taking into consideration some amendments of the European Parliament made to the original directive proposal and accepted by the Commission after the first reading . All offences but one require their "unlawful" commission, "unlawful" being defined as infringing Community or Member States legislation, administrative regulations or decisions by a competent authority aiming at the protection of the environment. Offences include the illegal shipment of waste as defined in Regulation 1013/2006/EC for profit and in a non-negligible quantity, and the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials into air, soil or water, which causes death or serious injury to any person. They also include the unlawful significant deterioration of a protected habitat. Liability of legal persons: Member States should ensure that legal persons can be held liable for offences where such offences have been committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, who has a leading position within the legal person. A legal person can also be held liable where the lack of supervision or control has made possible the commission of an offence for the benefit of that legal person by a person under its authority. Liability of a legal person must not exclude criminal proceedings against natural persons who are perpetrators, instigators or accessories in the offences referred to. Sanctions: Member States must ensure that the commission of the offences is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions. Where certain offences are committed with serious negligence and cause substantial damage to air, soil, water, animals or plants, they must be punishable by a maximum of at least between one and three years imprisonment. This increases by a length of at least between two and five years imprisonment, and between five and ten years imprisonment depending on the severity of the offence and the mental element i.e whether offences were intentionally committed. For legal persons, these must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, and must include criminal or non-criminal fines. For legal persons, there are three levels of fines: between EUR 300 000 and EUR 500 000; and between EUR 500 000 and EUR 750 000; and between EUR 750 000 and EUR 1 500 000 in cases where the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or ionising radiation into air, soil or water, or any other prescribed offence intentionally causes death or serious injury to any person. Alternative sanctions are suggested for both natural and legal persons. Such sanctions may be more effective than imprisonment or fines in many cases and include the obligation to reinstate the environment, the placing under judicial supervision, the ban on engaging in commercial activities or the publication of judicial decisions. Even though in many cases confiscation of crime-related objects will be an essential tool, the inclusion of a specific provision has not been considered necessary, as most of the serious environmental offences will be covered by the scope of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property.
  • date: 2007-02-15T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2781*&MEET_DATE=15/02/2007 title: 2781 summary: The Commission presented to the Council information concerning the recent Commission proposal for a Directive which would oblige Member States to treat serious offences against the environment as criminal acts and would ensure that they are effectively sanctioned. The proposal also sets minimum sanctions for environmental crimes across the Member States. To recall, in September 2005, the European Court of Justice confirmed that the Community had the competence to oblige Member States to adopt criminal law measures for the protection of the environment if necessary to ensure the efficient implementation of its environmental policy. For this reason it annulled the Framework Decision on environmental crime adopted in 2003 by the Council on the basis of a Member State initiative based on the provisions for judicial cooperation in criminal matters contained in the EU Treaty (Title VI, so called 3rd pillar). The Commission’s new proposal therefore is designed to replace both the Council's Framework Decision of 2003 and a proposal for a directive already presented by the Commission in 2001, which the Council rejected when adopting the 2003 Framework Decision. Member States would be required to ensure that a range of activities (e.g. illegal shipment of waste and unlawful trade in endangered species or in ozone-depleting substances) already prohibited by EU or national legislation are considered criminal offences, when committed intentionally or with serious negligence. Member states would have to ensure that particularly serious environmental crimes are punishable by a maximum of at least 5 years imprisonment and fines for companies of at least EUR 750 000. These cases would include crimes that have resulted in death or serious injury of a person or substantial damage to air, soil, water, animals or plants, or when the offence has been committed by a criminal organisation. In addition, the proposed directive provides for supplementary or alternative sanctions, such as the obligation to clean up/reinstate the environment or the possibility of stopping businesses from operating. Lastly, the proposed measures will ensure that criminals cannot exploit the significant differences which currently exist between the Member States. Loopholes in the action against environmental crime should therefore no longer exist within the European Union.
  • date: 2007-03-15T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2007-06-12T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2807*&MEET_DATE=12/06/2007 title: 2807 summary: The Council took note of a Presidency report on the state of play of the proposal for a Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The Presidency took up the proposal for a Directive at the earliest opportunity and arranged for its timely discussion in the Working Party on Substantive Criminal Law. Three working party meetings have taken place to date, all of which were marked by constructive cooperation between the Member States and the Commission. Discussions are currently focusing on drawing up the criminal offences (Article 3 in conjunction with Article 2(a)). Here there are some fundamental issues to be clarified, on the basis of the European Court of Justice's judgment of 13 September 2005. It has to be decided, for example, whether the Community legislator should confine itself to ensuring, by criminal law means, the enforcement of Community law or of such national law that transposes Community law, or whether the Directive should also apply to purely national environmental law. The clear attitude is emerging among the Member States that only violations of Community environmental legislation should be covered by the Directive. Discussions on the rules on sanctions (Articles 5 and 7) should, in the unanimous view of the Member States, be postponed until the European Court of Justice has ruled on the Commission's action for annulment of the Framework Decision to strengthen the criminal law framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution. That Framework Decision contains detailed rules on sanctions that are comparable to those in the proposal for a Directive. The Court of Justice is expected to give its ruling towards the end of 2007. Further discussions on the matter will take place under the Portuguese Presidency.
  • date: 2007-07-12T00:00:00 type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2007-12-20T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2842*&MEET_DATE=20/12/2007 title: 2842 summary: On 20 December 2007, the delegations became aware of a document for information issued by the Presidency (within the framework of “other points” of the Environment Council) on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental protection through criminal law. In this context, the Council recalls that, on 9 February 2007, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive on environmental protection through criminal law, which is of particular importance for the Member States of the European Union. They consider that a uniform level of protection throughout Europe in the field of environmental criminal law is both necessary and appropriate. The Member States had already made this clear by agreeing on the Framework Decision on the protection of the environment through criminal law (see CNS/2000/0801 ), which was annulled on grounds of lack of competence by the European Court of Justice in its judgment of 13 September 2005 (on this point, refer to the file synopsis on “ Environmental protection: combating crime, criminal offences and penalties ”). The proposal for a Directive is intended to replace the annulled Framework Decision and thus fill a gap in the area of environmental protection through criminal law. The Presidency continued the work initiated by the German Presidency, regarding this proposal as fundamental for the development of the protection of the environment. Six working party meetings have taken place to date, all of which were marked by constructive cooperation among the Member States and the Commission. General consensus was reached among Member States on the inclusion of an Annex with the list of Community legislation, infringement of which results in unlawful conduct pursuant to Article 2(a) of the proposed Directive. Following the decision taken by the Court of Justice on 23 October in Case C-440/05 pertaining to enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution, and the political framework set out by the Ministers of Justice at the lunch on 9 November, the working party reached broad agreement on the majority of the directive’s articles. Broad consensus was reached in the discussion on Articles 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Proposal, with only a very limited number of scrutiny reservations remaining, lodged by some Member States and by the Commission. Notwithstanding the above, outstanding issues remain, in particular regarding Article 2, subparagraph c), and Article 3, subparagraphs a), b), f), e) and h), which essentially concern criminal policy decisions. Contacts took place with the European Parliament with a view to facilitating a first reading agreement in the first half of 2008. The Presidency met the rapporteurs of the two committees involved in the co-decision procedure and took note of the European Parliament's high level of ambition. Given the considerable progress made regarding this directive and the generally favourable view of the aims of the instrument and the contributions made by the Member States, the Presidency believes that additional steps can be taken to further consolidate the agreement reached.
  • date: 2008-04-08T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted, under the 1 st reading of the codecision procedure and by a slim majority (15 votes in favour, 11 against and 2 abstentions), the report by Hartmut NASSAUER (EPP-ED, DE), adopting the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law. Overall, MEPs sought to reintegrate the measure into the exclusive field of Community law by limiting the impact of the directive to violations of Community environmental protection law. Member States therefore will retain the power to determine which sanctions to apply to violations of said Community law. In so doing, MEPs align themselves with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling of 23 October 2007 on this matter (C-440/05). The main amendments can be summarised as follows: Compliance with the ECJ ruling : as a reminder, the ECJ ruling of October 2007 on this proposal stated that the EU has competence to adopt criminal measures only where there is a "justifiable need", i.e., in the area of the common transport and environment policies. Therefore, the EU may not specify the type and level of criminal sanctions (which are applicable in the Member States) to be established. MEPs therefore decided to specify that the directive obliges Member States to include in their national legislation criminal sanctions for serious violations of Community environmental protection law, without creating obligations with regard to the implementation of such sanctions or of other available legal instruments in individual cases. They also deleted from the Commission’s text an article providing for the duration and extension of the proposed sanctions. Liability : MEPs state that the Directive concerns criminal liability only and is without prejudice to Community or national law, and to any rules derived therefrom, with respect to civil liability for environmental harm. “Unlawful acts” : in accordance with the principle held by the ECJ, MEPs state that only acts in violation of EU environmental protection law, as listed in the annex (Annex A and B) of the Directive , shall be considered unlawful. Among the illegal offences under Community law that should be reclassified as crimes, MEPs include environmental damage caused by the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or ionising radiation on to the Earth's surface, (including bedrock) , soil or water (including rocks), the emission of radiation onto the earth's surface (including bedrock) and rocks, the disposal of waste (collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste), and the manufacture and storage of nuclear materials (MEPs state, however, that only the Euratom Treaty - and the secondary legislation enacted pursuant thereto - regulates environmental protection with regard to nuclear activity; as a result, the unlawfulness of actions which affect the environment as a result of nuclear activities can be defined only by reference to the Euratom Treaty). Protected species : MEPs add more details to the meaning of “protected wild fauna and flora species” and “habitat within a protected site”. MEPs also backed the inclusion within the directive's scope of the possession, killing or trading of protected fauna and flora species, the deterioration of a habitat of a protected site (except in cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of those specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species), and the manufacture and distribution of ozone-depleting substances. “Intentional acts” – “acts of negligence ”: MEPs consider that intentional acts and acts of serious negligence should be treated separately. This is consistent with the structure of Council Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA of 12 July 2005. The question whether or not the perpetrator of the damage acted intentionally or negligently should be determined by reference to the time when the perpetrator became aware, or should have been aware, of the facts constituting the offence (and not to the time when the perpetrator commenced the activity). Furthermore, they state that the prior grant of an authorisation, licence or concession should not constitute a defence in such circumstances. Reports : MEPs consider that the reporting obligations that the Commission is proposing to impose on the Member States are bureaucratic and superfluous. They therefore delete the reporting obligations of Member States within the context of this proposal. Updating legislation : lastly, MEPs state that whenever subsequent legislation on environmental matters is adopted, it shall be specified whether it falls within the scope of this directive.
  • date: 2008-04-15T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-154&language=EN title: A6-0154/2008
  • date: 2008-05-19T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20080519&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2008-05-21T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=14907&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2008-05-21T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-215 title: T6-0215/2008 summary: The European Parliament adopted a legislative resolution amending the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The report had been tabled for consideration in plenary by Hartmut NASSAUER (EPP-ED, DE) on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs. The main amendments-adopted under the first reading of the codecision procedure-were the result of a compromise between the Parliament and the Council. Compliance with the ECJ ruling : to recall, the ECJ ruling of October 2007 on this proposal stated that the EU has competence to adopt criminal measures only where there is a “justifiable need", i.e., in the area of the common transport and environment policies. Therefore, the EU may not specify the type and level of criminal sanctions (which are applicable in the Member States) to be established. MEPs therefore decided to specify that the directive obliges Member States to include in their national legislation criminal sanctions for serious violations of Community environmental protection law, without creating obligations with regard to the implementation of such sanctions or of other available legal instruments in individual cases. They also deleted from the Commission's text an article providing for the duration and extension of the proposed sanctions. "Unlawful acts" : in accordance with the principle held by the ECJ, MEPs state that only acts in violation of EU environmental protection law, as listed in the annex (Annex A and B) of the Directive , shall be considered unlawful. Proscribed c onduct constitutes a criminal offence, when unlawful and committed intentionally or with at least serious negligence. Included among the unlawful acts regarding Community law, and which must be reclassified as crimes, are environmental damage caused by substantial damage to the quality of air, water and soil and poor management of waste or even the production, storage, export and disposal of nuclear materials or other radioactive substances. Inciting, aiding and abetting : Member States must ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting the intentional conduct referred to in the text is punishable as a criminal offence. Protected species : Parliament added definitions for "protected wild fauna and flora species" and "habitat within a protected site". It added to the scope of the Directive the trading in specimens of protected wild fauna and flora species or parts or derivatives thereof, except in cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of those specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species. It also added production, importation, exportation, placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances to the scope. Reports : MEPs consider that the reporting obligations that the Commission is proposing to impose on the Member States are bureaucratic and superfluous. They therefore delete the reporting obligations of Member States within the context of this proposal. Updating legislation : lastly, MEPs state that whenever subsequent legislation on environmental matters is adopted, it shall be specified whether it falls within the scope of this directive. Entry into force : the Member States should comply with the Directive within two years after it enters into force.
  • date: 2008-06-05T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2784*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008 title: 2784
  • date: 2008-06-05T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2784*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008 title: 2784
  • date: 2008-10-24T00:00:00 type: Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading body: EP/CSL
  • date: 2008-11-19T00:00:00 type: Final act signed body: CSL
  • date: 2008-11-19T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2008-12-06T00:00:00 type: Final act published in Official Journal summary: PURPOSE: to establish measures on the protection of the environment through criminal law. LEGISLATIVE ACT: Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law. CONTENT: the Council adopted a Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law after reaching agreement with the European Parliament at first reading. The new legislative act obliges Member States to provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties in their national legislation for serious infringements of provisions of Community law on the protection of the environment. These infringements include, for example: the emission of materials or ionising radiation into air, soil or water; the collection, transport, recovery or disposal of waste, including the shipment of waste; the operation of a plant in which a dangerous activity is carried out or in which dangerous substances or preparations are stored or used; the production, processing, handling, use, holding, storage, transport, import, export or disposal of nuclear materials or other hazardous radioactive substances; the killing, destruction, possession or taking of specimens of protected wild fauna or flora species; the placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances. Member States shall ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting the intentional conduct referred to above is punishable as a criminal offence. Legal persons can be held liable for offences where such offences have been committed for their benefit by any person who has a leading position within the legal person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person. ENTRY INTO FORCE: 26/12/2008. TRANSPOSITION: 26/12/2010. docs: title: Directive 2008/99 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32008L0099 title: OJ L 328 06.12.2008, p. 0028 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:328:SOM:EN:HTML
other
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment commissioner: DIMAS Stavros
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
JURI/6/47117
New
  • JURI/6/47117
procedure/final/url
Old
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32008L0099
New
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32008L0099
procedure/subject
Old
  • 3.70.16 Law and environment, liability
New
3.70.16
Law and environment, liability
activities/10/council
Old
Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
New
Environment
activities/10/docs/0/title
Old
2783
New
2784
activities/10/docs/0/url
Old
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2783*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008
New
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2784*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008
activities/10/meeting_id
Old
2783
New
2784
links/European Commission/title
Old
PreLex
New
EUR-Lex
activities
  • date: 2007-02-09T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2007/0051/COM_COM(2007)0051_EN.pdf celexid: CELEX:52007PC0051:EN type: Legislative proposal published title: COM(2007)0051 type: Legislative proposal published body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment Commissioner: DIMAS Stavros
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2781 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2781*&MEET_DATE=15/02/2007 type: Debate in Council title: 2781 council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) date: 2007-02-15T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2007-03-15T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: ENVI date: 2007-05-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PSE name: JØRGENSEN Dan body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2007-04-10T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: NASSAUER Hartmut body: EP responsible: False committee: LIBE date: 2007-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: HERRERO-TEJEDOR Luis
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2807 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2807*&MEET_DATE=12/06/2007 type: Debate in Council title: 2807 council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) date: 2007-06-12T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2007-07-12T00:00:00 body: EP type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2842 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2842*&MEET_DATE=20/12/2007 type: Debate in Council title: 2842 council: Environment date: 2007-12-20T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2008-04-08T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: ENVI date: 2007-05-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PSE name: JØRGENSEN Dan body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2007-04-10T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: NASSAUER Hartmut body: EP responsible: False committee: LIBE date: 2007-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: HERRERO-TEJEDOR Luis type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2008-04-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-154&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A6-0154/2008 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: ENVI date: 2007-05-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PSE name: JØRGENSEN Dan body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2007-04-10T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: NASSAUER Hartmut body: EP responsible: False committee: LIBE date: 2007-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: HERRERO-TEJEDOR Luis type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2008-05-19T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20080519&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2008-05-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=14907&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-215 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0215/2008 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2783 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2783*&MEET_DATE=05/06/2008 type: Debate in Council title: 2783 council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) date: 2008-06-05T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2008-10-24T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 2899
  • date: 2008-10-24T00:00:00 body: EP/CSL type: Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading
  • date: 2008-11-19T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Final act signed
  • date: 2008-11-19T00:00:00 body: EP type: End of procedure in Parliament
  • date: 2008-12-06T00:00:00 type: Final act published in Official Journal docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32008L0099 title: Directive 2008/99 url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:328:SOM:EN:HTML title: OJ L 328 06.12.2008, p. 0028
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: ENVI date: 2007-05-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PSE name: JØRGENSEN Dan
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2007-04-10T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: NASSAUER Hartmut
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: LIBE date: 2007-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: HERRERO-TEJEDOR Luis
links
National parliaments
European Commission
other
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment commissioner: DIMAS Stavros
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
JURI/6/47117
reference
2007/0022(COD)
instrument
Directive
legal_basis
EC Treaty (after Amsterdam) EC 175-p1
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Legislation
title
Protection of the environment through criminal law
type
COD - Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure)
final
subject
3.70.16 Law and environment, liability