Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Environmental Crime Directive will provide a new European legal instrument which is to contribute towards a more effective enforcement of the European environmental laws transposed and implemented in the Member States. The topic is an exciting one. Exciting, because the judicial system which is being selected is sound, but also because it will provide much material for the European legal experts in years to come. The view that the Member States must have at their disposal the option of criminal sanctions as a way of enforcing European environmental law is unreservedly shared by the Commission, Parliament and the Council. However, we are divided about the way in which such a system of criminal sanctions for serious environmental offences must be formulated and introduced, and about the question as to who can be involved in the codecision process. Along with Mr Di Lello Finuoli of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, I side with the European Commission and support an Environmental Crime Directive under the first pillar. With what is known as the Danish initiative, the Council has opted for measures under the third pillar. The members of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs are right to reject this decision. The thing that unites the Council, Parliament and the Commission is that we all wish to act upon the very explicit request expressed at the European Council of Tampere in October 1999 for common definitions, administration of justice and penalties aimed at a limited number of sectors of special significance, but where explicit reference is made to environmental crime. Since the choice of legal basis in the first pillar still elicits questions on the part of the Council, and on the part of some colleagues of my group, as I found out a moment ago, I will make a few enlightening observations which I hope, incidentally, will also convert the cynics. I will break these down into a few points. Why do we opt for the first pillar, and why do I recommend that the first pillar be chosen? Firstly, with regard to the Danish initiative, the Council refers to Article 31, introductory line and letter e) of the Treaty on European Union whereby the authority for common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters is given, and whereby e) provides for progressively adopting measures establishing minimum rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and to penalties in the fields of organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking. This clause is included in title VI. However, in accordance with Article 29 of the EU Treaty, the provisions of this title apply “without prejudice to the powers of the European Community”. But also in Article 47, it is stated that the Treaty on European Union does not prejudice the Treaties establishing the European Communities. In other words, criminal law does not exclusively fall within the remit of the European Union. Case law of the European Court of Justice, to which, incidentally, I also make reference in the report, confirms that the Treaty on European Union cannot constitute a barrier. Secondly, the question which subsequently arises, now that there are no general barriers to arriving at criminal measures within the scope of the Treaty on European Union, is: what is the EC specifically capable of doing and what is it allowed to do? If we look at Article 280(4) of the Treaty on European Union, which corresponds to Article 5 which enshrines the subsidiarity principle, then I note that in the field of environmental criminal law too, it should be ensured that EC legislation does not prejudice the organisation of the national administration of justice. Thirdly, it is therefore crucial that this directive should not be about specific provisions concerning criminal law, but that criminal law is used to make environmental policy effective. After all, the application of criminal law is in many areas an important coda for the enforcement of the rules, whereby, taking into consideration this subsidiarity, a certain level of harmonisation of criminal law enforcement can be useful for the implementation of Community provisions as a whole. Fourthly, the environmental crime proposal is based on Article 175(1) of the Treaty on European Union, which stipulates that the Council, according to the codecision procedure of Article 251, affects all measures which can help the environmental objective of Article 174, provided that this process is not hindered by subsidiarity. Fifthly, the proposal for a directive is based on environmental directives and regulations laid down on the basis of Article 175(1) and merely adds a criminal-law aspect to this legislation. The existing line is therefore extended, whereby the directive requires Member States to provide for criminal sanctions for activities which cause substantial damage to the environment. I based my assessment of the proposal and the submission of amendments on the aforementioned criteria. I did not alter Article 1 of the directive, which aims to lay down minimum standards for punishable offences. This enables Member States themselves to determine the punishment. In the definitions of Article 2, I also included incitement as an environmental offence, for which, incidentally, I used the Danish initiative as the basis. Thirdly, I included in Article 3 punishable offences which are now mentioned in the annex, with two minor changes. I unreservedly condemn Amendment No 22, because I am of the view that there is no legal basis for it. Fourthly, I have clarified the term 'framework' in Article 4. Instead of allowing the Member States to determine the punishment, it is preferable to use the term criminal sanctions. I have adapted Amended No 25, because subsidiarity plays a role here too. We can only invite the Member States to introduce measures such as confiscation if this element is specifically provided for in the Member States’ own legal systems. This directive amounts to a fine balancing act. We, as the European Parliament, must be very specific, because I assume that the European Court will verify the facts, and we, along with the European Commission, will possibly head in that direction too. Finally, I should like to thank my fellow MEPs, not only those from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the rapporteur of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, but also my fellow MEPs in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and all shadow rapporteurs. We have worked in unity and, even if the contribution now appears very technical, it is founded on extensive policy, which is not only important to the Commission, but certainly also to the European Parliament. We are serving a worthwhile goal, namely improved environmental protection.

Political group: PPE-DE