-
The European Union has significantly strengthened its approach to the criminalization of environmental offenses. Let’s analyze the key innovations of Directive 2024/1203, its impact on corporate liability, and the role of case law in shaping European standards of environmental justice.
In today’s world, where environmental crime ranks fourth in scale among global criminal activities, causing annual losses of 80–230 billion euros, the issue of effective legal regulation is becoming particularly relevant.
The dynamics of the transformation of social relations in the field of environmental protection are characterized by a significant increase in the cross-border impact of illegal activities on environmental security and the state of natural resources.
In response to these challenges, the European Union has significantly strengthened its approach to the criminalization of environmental offenses. The adoption of the new Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of April 11, 2024, is a key step in this direction, replacing the previous Directives 2008/99/EU and 2009/123/EU, introducing stricter sanctions, and expanding the list of offenses.
The new Directive 2024/1203 has significantly strengthened and clarified the system of sanctions for environmental offenses, reflecting the EU’s comprehensive approach to accountability. One of the most important innovations is the linking of fines to companies’ global turnover, which makes it impossible to evade liability through complex corporate structures.
Specifically, the Directive establishes the following
maximum penalties for legal entities, as well as prison terms for individuals:
Intentional acts resulting in death or serious environmental harm: for individuals, a prison term of at least 10 years; for legal entities, a fine of at least 5% of global turnover or 40 million euros. In addition, confiscation of profits and a ban on business activities may be imposed.
Significant damage to ecosystems, water, soil, or air resources: the maximum prison term is at least 8 years, and the fine for companies is at least 5% of global turnover or 40 million euros. Additional sanctions include the confiscation of equipment and obligations to restore the environment.
Illegal handling of hazardous waste: the penalty is a prison term of at least 5 years and a fine of at least 3% of global turnover or 24 million euros. A ban on participation in public procurement is also possible.
Use or export of prohibited chemicals: punishable by at least 6 years in prison and a fine of at least 3% of global turnover or 24 million euros, as well as the revocation of environmental licenses.
Mass destruction of forests or biodiversity: punishable by imprisonment for a term of at least 7 years and a fine of at least 4% of global turnover or 32 million euros, with mandatory environmental restoration.
Falsification of environmental permits or licenses: carries a sentence of at least 4 years’ imprisonment and a fine of at least 2% of global turnover or 16 million euros, as well as a court-ordered ban on operations.
Transboundary environmental crimes (e.g., illegal waste shipments): carry a sentence of at least 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of at least 3% of global turnover or 24 million euros, involving joint investigations with Europol.
This comprehensive system creates a reliable mechanism for influencing corporate behavior, encouraging the adoption of environmentally responsible practices and demonstrating the priority of environmental protection in EU policy.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) plays a significant role in the process of harmonizing Member States’ practices regarding criminal environmental cases. Although the CJEU does not directly hear criminal cases, its interpretation of EU law in preliminary ruling proceedings significantly influences the national classification of environmental crimes.
In particular, in Case C-176/03, “Commission v. Council” (2005), the Court ruled that the European Community has the authority to require Member States to impose criminal sanctions for serious violations of environmental law if such measures are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the Community’s environmental protection policy. This decision underscores the obligation of Member States not only to formally criminalize certain environmental offenses but also to ensure the effective application of sanctions that are proportionate to the nature of the violation and the harm caused to the environment.
Of particular importance is the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which plays a key role in shaping human rights standards in the field of environmental law. The ECHR hears cases involving state intervention in economic activity or the imposition of environmental sanctions that are challenged as violations of the right to property or the right to a fair trial. However, the Court recognizes environmental regulation as justified if it pursues a legitimate aim, is proportionate, and is necessary to protect public interests, in particular public health and the environment.
“Tătar v. Romania” (2009): The Court found that the Romanian authorities had failed to ensure adequate control over the use of cyanide at a gold mining enterprise, which led to significant environmental consequences and a threat to the health of local residents. A violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to private and family life) was found, emphasizing the obligation of states to establish effective environmental control mechanisms.
“Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland” (2024): The applicants argued that the state’s insufficient measures to combat climate change violated their rights under Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private life) of the ECHR. The Court recognized that the state has a positive obligation to ensure an adequate level of protection for the lives and health of citizens against environmental threats, including climate change. This decision affirmed states’ liability for inaction in the fight against climate change.
This ECHR case law demonstrates that environmental law is increasingly being integrated into the human rights framework, establishing new standards of state liability for environmental crimes and deficiencies in environmental regulation.
Consequently, the new Directive (EU) 2024/1203 represents a significant step toward strengthening criminal liability for environmental crimes and harmonizing environmental legislation within the European Union. It introduces stricter sanctions—in particular, those linked to companies’ global turnover—and expands the range of additional enforcement measures, underscoring the priority given to environmental protection.
The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, in turn, encourages member states to effectively implement these provisions, emphasizing their obligations to ensure environmental safety and protect human rights. For the corporate sector, this means the need to strengthen internal compliance systems and environmental responsibility, as the risks of non-compliance with environmental requirements are increasing significantly. Ensuring the inevitability of penalties and strengthening interagency cooperation will be key factors in the successful implementation of the new directive within national legal systems.
Author: Ruslan Gutsol, Barrister
Source: https://zib.com.ua/ua/167271-nova_direktiva_es_pro_ekologichni_zlochini_posilennya_vidpov.html