Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directive 2008/99/EC
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: criminal liability, cross-border cooperation, environmental law, environmental offence, environmental protection, environmental statistics, fight against crime, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, penalty, pollution control measures

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.12.2021  COM(2021) 851 final 2021/0422 (COD)  Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directive 2008/99/EC {SEC(2021) 428 final} - {SWD(2021) 465 final} - {SWD(2021) 466 final}  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

• 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

to  criminalise 
The  current  EU 
environmental  crime  is  Directive  2008/99/EC  on  the  protection  of  environment  through 
criminal law.  

that  provides  common  minimum  rules 

legislation 

The  Commission  evaluated  the  Directive  in  2019/20  and  published  its  findings  in  October 
20201.  It  found that  the  Directive did  not  have  much effect  on the  ground:  over the past  10 
years  the  number  of  environmental  crime  cases  successfully  investigated  and  sentenced 
remained very low. Moreover, the sanction levels imposed were too low to be dissuasive and 
cross-border cooperation did not take place in a systematic manner.  

The evaluation found considerable enforcement gaps in all Member States and at all levels of 
the enforcement chain (police, prosecution and criminal courts). It also identified deficiencies 
in the Member States in terms of resources, specialised knowledge, awareness, prioritisation, 
cooperation and information sharing, and found there were no overarching national strategies 
to  combat  environmental  crime  involving  all  levels  of  the  enforcement  chain  and  a  multi-
disciplinary  approach2.  Moreover,  the  lack  of  coordination  between  administrative  and 
criminal law enforcement and sanctioning often hinders effectiveness.  

It  was  also  noted  that  the  lack  of  reliable,  accurate  and  complete  statistical  data  on 
environmental crime proceedings in the Member States not only hampered the Commission’s 
evaluation  but  also  prevents  national  policy-makers  and  practitioners  from  monitoring  the 
effectiveness of their measures.  

Based on the evaluation findings, the Commission decided to revise the Directive. The 2021 
Commission Work Programme schedules a legislative proposal for revision of the Directive3 
in December 2021.  

It  is  proposed  to  replace  Directive  2008/99/EC.  This  proposal  is  accompanied  by  a 
Communication4  explaining  its  policy  objectives.  To  address  the  problems  identified,  the 
proposal has six objectives.  

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1 

2 
3 

4  

Improve the effectiveness of investigations and prosecution by updating the scope of 
the Directive.  

Improve  the  effectiveness  of  investigations  and  prosecutions  by  clarifying  or 
eliminating vague terms used in the definitions of environmental crime.  

Ensure  effective,  dissuasive  and  proportionate  sanction  types  and  levels  for 
environmental crime. 

Foster cross-border investigation and prosecution.  

Commission staff working document, Evaluation of Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  19  November  2008  on  the  protection  of  the  environment  through  criminal  law 
(Environmental Crime Directive), SWD (2020) 259 final of 28 October 2020 (part I, part II, executive 
summary). 
Evaluation report, p. 32-33. See p. 33 of the Evaluation report for further details on sources. 
2021  Commission  Work  Programme,  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2021-commission-work-
programme-key documents_en.  
Communication  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  stepping  up  the  fight  against 
environmental crime, COM(2021) 814 of 14 December 2021 

EN 

1 

  EN 

                                                 
 
 
5. 

6. 

• 

Improve  informed  decision-making  on  environmental  crime  through  improved 
collection and dissemination of statistical data. 

Improve  the  operational  effectiveness  of  national  enforcement  chains  to  foster 
investigations, prosecutions and sanctioning.  

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

The  objectives  of  this  proposal  are  consistent  with  the  following  policy  and  legislative 
provisions:  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States 

Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of 
the European Union  

Directive  2014/41/EU  regarding  the  European  Investigation  Order  in  criminal 
matters 

Council  Framework  Decision  2005/214/JHA  on  the  application  of  the  principle  of 
mutual recognition to financial penalties 

Council  Framework  Decision  2009/948/JHA  on  prevention  and  settlement  of 
conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings 

Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA on the organisation and content of the 
exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States 

Regulation (EU) 2016/794 on Europol  

Council  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1939  implementing  enhanced  cooperation  on  the 
establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’)  

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 concerning investigations conducted by the 
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) 

Directive (EU) 2017/1371 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests 
by means of criminal law 

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union 
law. 

Consistency with other EU policies 

Criminal law is one part of a comprehensive EU strategy to protect and improve the status of 
the  environment,  a  priority  for  the  European  Commission.  The  Green  Deal  communication 
and the biodiversity strategy set out a whole range of environmental protection measures that 
reinforce  and  influence  each  other,  bringing  them  together  in  a  holistic  approach.  Criminal 
law  measures  come  in  as  a  last  resort  when  other  measures  have  not  sufficed  to  ensure 
compliance. Thus, environmental indicators on e.g. the degree of air pollution or biodiversity 
would measure the effectiveness of the overall strategy to improve the environment, not just 
the effectiveness of the new approach towards environmental crime.  

In addition, the EU Security Union Strategy and the EU Strategy to tackle Organised Crime 
2021-2025  include  the  assessment  and  revision  of  the  Directive  as  part  of  the  key  actions 
identified to fight environmental crime. 

EN 

2 

  EN 

2. 

• 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

The legal basis for the proposed Directive is Article 83(2) TFEU. Article 83(2) TFEU sets out 
the  EU’s  competence  to  establish  minimum  rules  with  regard  to  the  definition  of  criminal 
offences  and  sanctions  in  EU  policy  areas  which  have  been  subject  to  harmonisation 
measures, if this is necessary for effective enforcement:  

‘If the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential 
to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to 
harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition 
of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned. Such directives shall be adopted by 
the  same  ordinary  or  special  legislative  procedure  as  was  followed  for  the  adoption  of  the 
harmonisation measures in question, without prejudice to Article 76.’ 

• 

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)  

Criminal  activities  related  to  the  environment  often  have  a  cross-border  dimension,  while 
some  environmental  crimes  usually  impact  several  countries  (for  example  the  illicit 
trafficking of waste, of protected species or of wildlife products, see Section 1 – Introduction) 
or have cross-border effects (e.g. in the case of cross-border pollution of air, water and soil)5. 
Cross-border  cooperation  between  law  enforcement  and  judicial  authorities  is  therefore 
essential. 

The existing Directive aimed to provide a harmonised legal framework of criminal offences to 
facilitate cross-border cooperation. However, as detailed in the evaluation report, despite the 
progress  in  creating  an  EU-wide  common  set  of  definitions  of  environmental  crimes  and 
requiring  more  dissuasive  sanction  levels,  Member  States  on  their  own  have  not  reconciled 
their respective understandings of environmental crime within the room for manoeuver left by 
the Directive. Similarly, the insufficient sanction levels in a number of Member States prevent 
a  level  playing  field  across  the  EU  and  the  application  of  mutual  recognition  instruments 
(such as the European Arrest Warrant and the European Investigation Order).  

There is a growing gap between the criminal justice response to environmental crime and the 
criminological  situation  on  the  ground.  Despite  the  current  Directive,  the  number  of  cross-
border  investigations  and  convictions  in  the  EU  for  environmental  crime  has  not  grown 
substantially. In the meantime, in contrast, environmental crime is growing at annual rates of 
5%  to  7%  globally6,  creating  lasting  damage  for  habitats,  species,  people’s  health,  and  the 
revenues of governments and businesses. 

• 

Proportionality 

In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  as  set  out  in  Article  5(4)  TEU,  the 
proposed revision of Directive 2008/99/EC is limited to what is necessary and proportionate 
to  adapt  existing legislation on offences in  this  area to  new threats.  Measures  on the use of 
investigative  tools  and  information  exchange  are  included  only  to  the  extent  needed  for  the 
proposed criminal law framework to function effectively.  

5 

6 

Report on Eurojust’s Casework on Environmental Crime - January 2021, p. 8. See a UNEP and Interpol 
Rapid Response Assessment, ‘The rise of environmental crime. A growing threat to natural resources, 
peace, development and security’, 2016, p. 7. 
UNEP and Interpol Rapid Response Assessment, ‘The rise of environmental crime. A growing threat to 
natural resources, peace, development and security’, 2016, p. 7. 

EN 

3 

  EN 

                                                 
The  proposal  defines  the  scope  of  the  criminal  offences  to  cover  all  relevant  conduct  while 
limiting  it  to  what  is  necessary  and  proportionate.  The  new  directive  includes  new 
environmental  offence  categories  to  the  extent  required  by  the  underlying  environmental 
legislation. Both the offences and sanctions are limited to serious breaches of environmental 
law and thus respect proportionality.  

• 

Choice of the instrument 

In  accordance  with  Articles  83(2),  minimum  rules  with  regard  to  the  definition  of  criminal 
offences and sanctions in EU policy areas which have been subject to harmonisation measures 
may only be established by means of a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council 
procedure.  
the 
adopted 

accordance 

legislative 

ordinary 

with 

in 

There  is  still  a  need  for  criminal  sanctions  to  ensure  effective  implementation  in  the  areas 
covered by the 2008 Environmental Crime Directive. Therefore, the Commission proposes to 
carry over the list of offences included in Article 3 of the 2008 Directive, with the necessary 
precisions  and  modifications,  that  includes:  serious  pollution  offences;  illegal  waste 
management and waste shipments; the operation of installations in which dangerous activities 
are  carried out  or dangerous substances are stored or used;  offences related to  manufacture, 
production, processing,  handling, use, holding, storage, transport, import,  export or disposal 
of  radioactive  material;  wildlife  crimes,  including  illegal  killing,  destruction,  possession  or 
taking  of  specimens  of  wild  fauna  and  flora  species,  illegal  wildlife  trafficking  and  habitats 
deterioration;  illegal  production,  placing  on  the  market,  import,  export,  use,  emission  or 
release of ozone depleting substances.  

The  need  to  combat  these  offence  categories  by  criminal  sanctions  was  confirmed  by  the 
Council conclusions setting the EU’s priorities for the fight against serious and organised for 
the European multi-disciplinary platform against criminal threats (EMPACT) 2022-20257.  

As regards waste crime in particular, the 2021 European Union Serious and Organised Crime 
Threat  Assessment  report8 states  that “waste management  is  a lucrative and fast-developing 
industry, which increasingly attracts criminals. The majority of the reported waste trafficking 
cases  involved  individuals  working  in  or  operating  waste  management  companies  as 
managers  or  staff,  who  violate  national  and  international  legislation  and  standards 
regulating  the  collection,  treatment  and  disposal  of  waste  to  maximise  profits.  The  most 
successful waste traffickers are those who control the entire processing cycle, from source to 
destination  countries.  Criminals  trafficking  waste  between  different  countries  primarily  use 
legal business structures to orchestrate waste crimes. Often multiple companies are owned by 
the  same  individuals  or  by  strawpersons.  The  legal  business  structures  frequently  change 
leadership and are often terminated after a short period  of  activity, as a new trading entity 
takes  over  the  business.  Companies  operating  different  stages  in  the  waste  cycle  are  often 
located in different jurisdictions. Waste trafficking is strongly linked to other offences such as 

7 

8 

Council  conclusions  setting  the  EU's  priorities  for  the  fight  against  serious  and  organised  crime  for 
EMPACT 2022 – 2025, 8665/21, 12 May 2021. The aim of the priority on environmental crime is: “to 
disrupt criminal networks involved in all forms of environmental crime, with a specific focus on waste 
and  wildlife  trafficking, as  well as on criminal networks and individual criminal entrepreneurs  with a 
capability  to  infiltrate  legal  business  structures  at  high  level  or  to  set  up  own  companies  in  order  to 
facilitate their crimes”.  
European  Union  Serious  and  Organised  Crime  Threat  Assessment  Threat  Assessment  (SOCTA),  A 
corrupting  influence:  the  infiltration  and  undermining  of  Europe’s  economy  and  society  by  organised 
crime, Europol 2021, p. 54. For wildlife crime see p. 55f.  

EN 

4 

  EN 

 
                                                 
document fraud, economic fraud, tax evasion, corruption, money laundering, as well as theft 
and the dumping of waste from illegal drug production”. 

In  addition,  the  Commission  has  identified  a  need  for  criminal  sanctions  to  ensure  the 
effective implementation  of EU policies on protection of the environment,  in  relation  to  the 
following offence categories currently not covered by the Directive: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

placement  on  the  market  of  products  which,  in  breach  of  mandatory  requirements, 
cause  substantial  damage  to  the  environment  because  of  product’s  use  on  larger 
scale; 

serious  breaches  of  EU  chemicals  legislation  causing  substantial  damage  to  the 
environment or human health; 

illegal ship recycling; 

illegal water abstraction;  

source discharge of polluting substances from ships (it is proposed that this offence 
category  is  taken  over  from  Directive  2005/35/EC9,  to  consolidate  the  legal 
framework); 

illegal trade in timber;  

serious  breaches  of  rules  on  introduction  and  spread  of  invasive  alien  species  with 
Union concern; 

serious circumvention of requirements to do an environmental impact assessment; 

illegal production, placing on the market, import, export, use, emission or release of 
fluorinated greenhouse gases.  

These conducts have a potential high risk to human health and the environment and can lead 
to  particularly  serious  negative  impacts  on  the  environment  and  the  society.  Despite  the 
actually  occurring  and  potentially  possible  detrimental  consequences,  currently 
the 
enforcement of the relevant rules is not sufficiently effective. The adoption of and reliance on 
administrative  sanctions  by  Member  States  has,  to  date,  proven  to  be  insufficient  to  ensure 
compliance with the rules on protection of the environment which calls for stronger measures 
on preventing and fighting environmental crime.  

For example, as regards the EU Timber Regulation10, while all Member States have included 
sanctions  for  offenders  in  national  legislation,  the  types  of  sanctions  and  maximum  levels 
vary across Member States significantly: administrative fines and seizures can be imposed in 
23  Member  States,  criminal  fines  in  16,  imprisonment  in  17,  suspension  of  trade  in  15  and 
other types of penalties in 11. Fines applicable to infringements of the EU Timber Regulation 
range from EUR 50 to an unlimited amount11. These discrepancies between Member States’ 

9 

10 

11 

Directive  2005/35/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7  September  2005  on  ship-
source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 11–21).  
Regulation  (EU)  No  995/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  October  2010 
laying  down  the  obligations  of  operators  who  place  timber  and  timber  products  on  the  market  (OJ  L 
295, 12.11.2010, p. 23–34).  
Commission Staff Working Document Fitness Check on Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place 
timber  and  timber  products  on  the  market  (the  EU  Timber  Regulation)  and  on  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2173/2005  of  20  December  2005  on  the  establishment  of  a  FLEGT  licensing  scheme  for  imports  of 
timber into the European Community (FLEGT Regulation) 17.11.2021 SWD(2021) 328 final, p. 14.  

EN 

5 

  EN 

                                                 
sanction  regimes  applicable  to  violation  of  the  EU  Timber  Regulation  and  the  fact  that 
sanctions  are  deemed  in  many  cases  too  low  to  truly  have  a  deterrent  effect  on  illegal 
behaviours, coupled with  uneven enforcement  across the EU, bear a risk of trade diversion. 
Moreover, the disparities in sanction regimes and the lack of uniform implementation across 
Member States undermine the level playing field by putting the operators who strictly comply 
with  the  requirements  at  a  disadvantage.  This  can  be  addressed  through  harmonized 
criminalization  and  through  an  approximation  of  sanction  levels  across  the  EU  in  the 
Environmental Crime Directive.  

It  is  clear  that  administrative  sanctions  are  inadequate  in  circumstances  such  as  those  that 
resulted in the murders of two forest rangers in one Member State who had been investigating 
problems  related  to  illegal  timber  harvesting.  The  underline  pattern  of  timber-related 
infringements  are  of  such  a  serious  nature  that  authorities  must  have  the  means  of  criminal 
enforcement  to  tackle  them.  On  timber  related  issues,  the  Commission  had  launched  an 
infringement procedure against that Member State concerning the lack of effective checks on 
operators  and  failure  to  apply  appropriate  sanctions.  In  the  meantime,  that  Member  State 
introduced  criminal  penalties  for  specific  misconducts  which  were  previously  subject  to 
administrative sanctions only which were insufficient to ensure compliance.  

The serious breaches of prohibitions on the use of defeat devises in motor vehicles uncovered 
since  2015  demonstrate  that  even  large  established  companies  may  not  be  deterred  from 
infringements if they perceive that the only enforcement will be of administrative nature.  

Another example relates to illegal water abstraction which contributes to serious depletion of 
water  resources,  a  problem  set  to  worsen  as  a  result  of  climate  change.  In  its  2021  Special 
Report  on  “Sustainable  water  use  in  agriculture:  CAP  funds  more  likely  to  promote  greater 
rather than more efficient water use”, the Court of Auditors documents the ineffectiveness of 
administrative  measures  to  address  over-abstraction  of  water  and  stresses  that  checks  are 
infrequent  and  sanctions  too  low  to  ensure  effective  implementation  and  compliance  with 
relevant obligations12. The report refers to shortcomings in sanctioning regimes in individual 
Member States.13.  

Furthermore,  a  limited  number  of  Member  States  have  introduced  sanctions  applicable  to 
developers  under  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Directive.  For  example,  developers 
are not targeted in a systematic manner in cases where they fail to undertake an environmental 
impact  assessment  for  a  given  project  or  execute  projects  prior  to  finalisation  of  respective 
procedures  or  without  proper  permits.  Breaches  of  these  obligations  may  lead  to  significant 
negative consequences to the environment, while the existing level of sanctions do not deter 
sufficiently such offences.  

It is essential that compliance with the EU rules on activities with impact on the environment 
and  on  environmentally  sensitive  goods  is  strengthened  by  the  availability  of  criminal 
sanctions which demonstrate a stronger form of social disapproval compared to administrative 
penalties.  Establishing  criminal  offences  for  serious  breaches  of  Union  rules,  which 
irrespective of their legal basis contribute to the Union policy of protecting the environment, 
sets clear boundaries for types of behaviour that are considered to be particularly unacceptable 
and sends a message to  the public  and to potential offenders that competent authorities take 

12 

13 

European Court of Auditors, Special report 2021, Sustainable water use in agriculture: CAP funds more 
likely to promote greater rather than more efficient water use, Point 62f.  
European Court of Auditors, Special report 2021, Sustainable water use in agriculture: CAP funds more 
likely to promote greater rather than more efficient water use, see for example Point 32.  

EN 

6 

  EN 

                                                 
such  behaviour  very  seriously.  This  seems  particularly  appropriate  having  regard  to  the 
explicit reliance on the preventive and precautionary principles in this policy area.  

Common  minimum  rules  on  definition  of  environmental  criminal  offences  and  sanctions 
would also make it possible to use more effective methods of investigation and enable more 
effective  cooperation  within  and  between  Member  States.  This  has  been  recognised  as 
particularly  important  as  regards  combating  waste  and  wildlife  trafficking  (including  illegal 
timber trade), given the relationship with the internal market and EU trade policy.  

Given  the  possible  devastating  impacts  of  environmental  crimes  on  the  environment  and 
human  health,  it  is  important  that  potential  perpetrators  do  not  perceive  parts  of  the  EU  as 
operating a lighter and less effective regulatory regime. The imposition of criminal sanctions 
for  the  most  serious  environmental  misconduct  will  have  an  increased  deterrent  effect  on 
potential offenders. The introduction by all Member States of criminal sanctions is therefore 
essential to ensure the effective implementation of Union policy on environmental protection.  

With regard to the inclusion of negligent conduct within the scope of offences, it is important 
to stress the extent of the reliance of EU environmental rules on preventive and precautionary 
measures. The Treaty explicitly (Article 191 (2) TFEU) provides that environmental policy is 
based  on  these  principles.  The  importance  of  a  high  standard  of  care  is  necessary  for  the 
conduct of activities which are inherently dangerous because of the use of hazardous materials 
and/or  processes.  In  such  context,  negligent  conduct  can  have  major  and  even  catastrophic 
repercussions,  making  it  necessary  to  underline  society’s  position  that  negligent  conduct 
should be treated as sufficiently grave to be criminalised. Criminal law is intended to have a 
deterrent  effect,  and  inclusion  of  negligence  should  of  itself  disincentives  any  inclination 
towards  such  conducts,  for  example  in  order  to  obtain  a  financial  gain  through 
underinvestment or corner cutting.  

The environmental acquis includes an important number of instruments, such as the Industrial 
Emission Directive14, the Seveso Directive15, the REACH Regulation16 and waste legislation 
which focus on ensuring that dangerous or high risk activities and substances are treated with 
a high level of technical safeguards.  

With regard to the frequency of occurrence of certain offences, regrettably, organised crime is 
recognised  as  undermining  the  management  of  waste17.  Problems  of  defiance  of  wildlife 
prohibitions  are  also  a  long  recognised  problem,  as  demonstrated  by  the  focus  of  the  Bern 
Convention18  on  work  related  to  combating  wildlife  crime,  for  instance.  Also  against  this 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  November  2010  on 
industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17–119).  
Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of 
major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council 
Directive 96/82/EC Text with EEA relevance (OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 1–37).  
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the  European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 
concerning  the  Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction  of  Chemicals  (REACH), 
establishing  a  European  Chemicals  Agency,  amending  Directive  1999/45/EC  and  repealing  Council 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  793/93  and  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1488/94  as  well  as  Council 
Directive  76/769/EEC  and  Commission  Directives  91/155/EEC,  93/67/EEC,  93/105/EC  and 
2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1). 
European  Union  Serious  and  Organised  Crime  Threat  Assessment  Threat  Assessment  (SOCTA),  A 
corrupting  influence:  the  infiltration  and  undermining  of  Europe’s  economy  and  society  by  organised 
crime, Europol 2021, p. 54f.  
Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats.  

EN 

7 

  EN 

                                                 
background and due to the nature of the relevant conduct, it is necessary that also negligent 
behaviour is covered by this Directive.  

3. 

• 

RESULTS  OF 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EVALUATIONS, 

POST 

EX 

STAKEHOLDER 

Ex post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation 

The Commission carried out an evaluaton of the current Directive in 2019/2020 (published in 
October 2020), which concluded that the Directive did not have much effect on the  ground. 
The  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  Directive  was  guided  by  four  main  assessment  criteria:  (a) 
effectiveness (evaluation of whether the objectives of the Directive have been achieved),  (b) 
efficiency  (evaluation  of  whether  the  benefits  of  having  and  implementing  the  Directive 
justify  the  costs),  (c)  coherence  (with  other  relevant  EU  criminal  and  environmental 
legislation and policies, as well as with the EU’s international obligations) and (d) relevance 
(relevance of the Directive’s original objectives in the light of current and future needs). The 
evaluation  also  took  into  account  social  and  economic  impacts  for  different  stakeholder 
groups.  

The  evaluation  identified  six  main  problems  that  have  resulted  in  the  Directive’s  lack  of 
effectiveness in practice:  

1.  The  Directive’s  scope  is  outdated  and  is  defined  in  a  complex  way,  hindering  effective 
investigations, prosecutions and cross-border cooperation.  

2.  The  Directive  contains  several  unclear  definitions  used  for  the  descriptions  of 
environmental criminal offences, which may hinder effective investigations, procecutions and 
cross-border cooperation. 

3. Sanction levels are not sufficiently effective and dissuasive in all Member States under the 
current Directive. 

4. Insufficient internal and cross-border cooperation and coordination on environmental crime 
among Member States hinder effective investigations and prosecutions. 

5.  The  lack  of  reliable,  accurate  and  complete  statistical  data  on  environmental  crime 
proceedings  in  the  Member  States  prevents  national  policy-makers  and  practitioners  from 
monitoring the effectiveness of their measures.  

6. Ineffective enforcement chain: environmental crime is not effectively prioritised, detected, 
investigated, prosecuted and sanctioned due to ineffective operation of the enforcement chain. 
Enforcement gaps in all Member States and at all levels of the enforcement chain (inspectors, 
police,  prosecution  and  criminal  courts)  have  been  identified,  including  a  lack  of  resources, 
insufficient training and lack of specialised knowledge, a lack of awareness and prioritisation, 
and weak cooperation and information sharing. 

Based  on  the  findings  of  the  evaluation,  the  European  Commission  decided  to  revise  the 
Directive and  conducted  an impact  assessment.  The  various  steps of the  impact  assessment, 
from  the  definition  of  problems  and  their  drivers  to  the  identification  of  objectives  and 
possible policy options, relied on the findings of the evaluation report.  

• 

Stakeholder consultations 

The  Commission  conducted  fruitful  public  and  targeted  stakeholder  consultations  to  benefit 
from external expertise and understand the concerns of the wider public. Moreover, it aimed 
to  ensure  that  the  options  considered  for  the  review  of  the  Directive  represent  the  most 
appropriate  ways  to  increase  its  effectiveness  and  support  the  work  of  practitioners  on  the 

EN 

8 

  EN 

ground.  The  consultations  were  conducted  as  widely  as  possible  to  receive  relevant  input, 
evidence  and  explanation  of  the  relevant  and  actual  needs  of  different  categories  of 
stakeholders about the six main objectives:  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clarify and update the scope of the Environmental Crime Directive;  

Clarify legal terms used to define environmental criminal offences;  

Improve availability of dissuasive and comparable sanction types and levels;  

Improve cross-border cooperation; 

Improve  the  collection  and  dissemination  of  information  and  statistical  data; 
and 

Improve  the  functioning  of  the  enforcement  chain  (training,  coordination  and 
cooperation, resources, strategic approach).  

The  consultations  were  conducted  at  an  early  stage  and  sought  views  from  a  wide  range  of 
stakeholders,  such  as  members  of  the  public,  experts,  practitioners  (police  services, 
inspectors,  prosecutors  and  judges),  networks  of  practitioners  (IMPEL,  ENPE,  EUFJE, 
EnvirCrimeNet), public authorities from Member States (Ministries of Justice and Ministries 
of  Environment),  European  agencies  (Europol  and  Eurojust),  environmental  non-
governmental  organisations  (NGOs),  business  organisations,  individual  companies  and 
academics. All these were consulted on their expectations and concerns about the need for and 
content of a possible review of the Environmental Crime Directive.  

During the consultation process, the Commission applied a variety of methods and forms of 
consultation. They included: 

 

 

 

 

 

The  consultation  on  the  inception  impact  assessment  and  a  12-week  open  public 
consultation, which sought views from all interested parties. 

A series of online targeted thematic workshops and expert group meetings, including 
meetings of the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum and its Working 
Group  on  sanctioning  of  environmental  offences.  Dedicated  questionnaires  and 
discussion papers were sent out in advance to prepare for the meetings hosted by the 
Commission. 

A number of online conferences in which the Commission participated and presented 
its work in this area gathered feedback on the six main options from other conference 
participants  and  invited  additional  participants  in  the  expert  process  and  the  public 
consultation. 

Bilateral online meetings with a wide range of stakeholders organised at the initiative 
of the Commission or stakeholders.  

Position  papers  and  analytical  papers  from  European  agencies,  practitioners, 
professional  networks  (e.g.  the  joint  statement  of  IMPEL/ENPE/EUFJE  and 
EnviCrimeNet  adopted  at  a  conference  in  May  2021  devoted  to  combating 
environmental  crime  and  the  revision  of  the  ECD),  industry  representatives,  public 
authorities from Member States, NGOs, civil society and academia.  

In total, the dedicated consultation activities lasted more than 6 months, from February 2021 
to July 2021.  

EN 

9 

  EN 

The consultation was designed to follow the same logical sequence as the impact assessment, 
starting  with  the  problem  definition  and  allowing  for  gradual  development  of  the  possible 
options and their impacts: 

 

 

 

 

 

The  majority  of  the  respondents  confirmed  the  need  to  update  the  scope  of  the 
Environmental Crime Directive and to clarify legal terms.  

Most  of  the  contributions  from  NGOs  and  business  associations  identified 
environmental  areas  or  specific  legislation  which  are  not  covered  by  the  current 
Environmental Crime Directive but whose inclusion should be considered.  

The  majority  of  the  respondents  considered  it  appropriate  to  include  provisions  on 
minimal  levels  for  maximum  sanctions  and  for  aggravating  circumstances.  The 
inclusion of a provision on confiscation along with legislation against legal persons 
are considered useful in some cases. 

Several  parties  advocated  for  better  collection  and  transmission  of  information  by 
Member States. Concerns were raised that this would mean complex IT adjustments, 
a  difficult  and  lengthy  process  which  puts  a  heavy  administrative  burden  on  law 
enforcement authorities, the Public Prosecution Office and the judiciary.  

The  large  majority  of  stakeholders  confirmed  the  pressing  need  to  improve  the 
effectiveness  of  the  enforcement  chain  in  practice  and  the  need  for  provisions  on 
training, resources, cooperation and coordination, together with strategic approaches 
for combating environmental crime.  

The  Commission  took  all  responses  into  consideration  when  deciding  which  options  should 
be favoured. More information on the consultations can be found in the annexes to the impact 
assessment (Annexes 7 and 8).  

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

To  ensure  the  availability  of  the  necessary  evidence  for  its  impact  assessment,  the 
Commission  drew  on  a  wide  spectrum  of  expertise.  The  expert  opinions  considered  can  be 
divided  into  two  main  categories:  state  of  the  art  studies  on  the  subject,  and  stakeholder 
consultations.  

First, the Commission evaluated the current Directive in 2019/20 and published its findings in 
October  2020.  The  evaluation  helped  the  Commission  to  understand  the  benefits  and 
drawbacks of the current legislation. It paved the way for the review of the Directive, as the 
evaluation  clearly  underlined  that  the  current  legislation  had  only  negligible  effects  on  the 
ground.  After  the  evaluation,  the  Commission  contracted  a  study  to  support  the  impact 
assessment;  the  study  was  conducted  between  April  2021  and  October  2021.  It  aimed  to 
assess the impacts of different options, mainly their financial and economic impact.  

Besides  the  two  studies,  the  Commission  conducted  a  comprehensive  review  of  existing 
literature  on  the  subject.  This  is  reflected  by  the  numerous  references  used  in  the  impact 
assessment. In addition, a large number of written statements from stakeholders, e.g. Eurojust, 
Europol,  professional  networks,  practitioners,  Member  States,  NGOs  and  businesses  were 
analysed.  Desk  research  also  covered  the  review  of  European  Parliament  positions,  such  as 
the  report  on  the  liability  of  companies  for  environmental  damage  (2020/2027(INI))  of  the 
Committee on Legal  Affairs.  Findings from working groups, such as the country survey for 
the 2nd meeting of the Council of Europe’s Working Group on the Environment and Criminal 
Law on 15 June 2021, were also taken into account. 

EN 

10 

  EN 

Relevant  work  of  the  main  European  Environmental  Enforcement  Networks  (IMPEL, 
EnviCrimeNet, ENPE, EUFJE) has also been carefully considered.  

The  outcomes  of  the  eighth  round  of  the  Council’s  mutual  evaluations  on  combating 
environmental crime have also been taken into account.  

• 

Impact assessment 

The  legislative  proposal  is  based  on  an  impact  assessment.  The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board 
(RSB) issued a positive opinion (with reservations) on 1 October 2021. Annex I to the impact 
assessment explains how the RSB comments were addressed. 

An evaluation showed that the Directive, although establishing a common EU framework of 
key environmental crime, did not have much effect in practice;  

It did not affect the number of convictions or the level of imposed sanctions in the Member 
States. In particular, the evaluation identified the following specific key problems: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

The scope of the ECD (defined in two annexes to the ECD and a list of offenses in 
Article  3  of  the  ECD)  is  outdated  and  it  is  defined  in  a  complex  way,  hindering 
effective investigations, prosecutions and cross-border cooperation.  

Definitions  of  what  constitutes  ‘environmental  crime’  are  unclear  and  hinder 
effective  investigation,  prosecutions  and  cross  border  cooperation  between  and 
within Member States. 

Sanction levels are not effective and dissuasive in all Member States.  

Cross-border cooperation is too limited; 

Policymakers  and  practitioners  lack  awareness  of  the  nature  and  scale  of 
environmental  crime  and  the  effectiveness  of  law  enforcement  measures  due  to 
limited collection, processing and sharing of statistical data. 

The enforcement chain for combating environmental crime, inter alia, is ineffective 
owing to lack of training and specialisation, as well as insufficient coordination and 
cooperation between the different levels of environmental law enforcement. 

The  Commission  has  developed  a  number  of  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options. 
The  options  considered  and  discarded  at  an  early  stage  were:  to  repeal  the  Directive;  or  to 
address the identified problems through non-binding measures only, such as EU guidance on 
the interpretation of definitions and levels of sanctions.  

Based  on  the  assessment,  the  only  suitable  option  for  achieving  the  specific  objectives 
identified  is  to  revise  the  Directive.  This  would  not  exclude  supporting  non-legislative 
measures (hereinafter: ‘main option’). In the context of the main policy option, the following 
sub-options  (hereinafter:  ‘Options’)  have  been  identified  and  assessed  in  full  detail  in  the 
Impact Assessment to address each specific objective: 

Objective  1:  Improve  the  effectiveness  of  investigations  and  prosecutions  by  updating 
the  scope  of  the  Directive  and  introducing  a  feasible  mechanism  to  keep  the  Directive 
up-to-date in the light of the European Green Deal. 

 

Option  1a:  Update  the  existing  list  of  legislation  in  the  annexes,  add  new 
relevant crime categories to Article 3, and introduce the comitology procedure 
to keep the annexe updated. 

EN 

11 

  EN 

 

 

Option  1b:  Refer  to  relevant  sectoral  legislation  in  general  terms  and  remove 
the  annexes;  refine  the  definition  of  what  constitutes  environmental  crime  in 
the Article 3 offences, and add new relevant crime categories.  

Option  1c:  Define  environmental  crime  in  the  Directive  without  the 
requirement of a breach of relevant EU sectoral legislation. 

The preferred option is 1b, as it adds more legal clarity concerning which breaches of sectoral 
legislation constitute environmental crime. In the future, the European legislator would have 
to, update the Directive (similarly to the current situation), as a simpler mechanism – namely 
the  comitology  procedure  –  is  not  applicable  to  essential  components  of  the  Directive.  The 
definition of environmental crime is an essential component. The offences in Article 3 would 
be  defined  by  reference  to  an  expanded  definition  of  what  is  ‘unlawful’  and  would  also 
contain an updated list of crime categories based on serious breaches of current environmental 
legislation.  

Objective 2: Improve the effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions by clarifying or 
eliminating vague terms used in the definitions of environmental crime. 

 

 

 

Option  2a:  Define  unclear  terms  in  the  Directive  (e.g.  ‘substantial  damage’) 
more precisely. 

Option  2b:  Eliminate  vague  terms  as  for  example  ‘substantial  damage’, 
including by criminalising risky behaviour (endangerment crime). 

Option 2c: A combination of options 2a and 2b. 

The preferred option is 2c, because for the sake of clarity the legislator should clarify in the 
Directive  itself  (option  2a)  the  unclear  definitions  identified  and  should  also  add  more 
offences  based  on  the  concept  of  risk,  essential  for  cases  entailing  great  harm  that  can  be 
proved in  environmental crime proceedings. Endangerment  crimes would catch cases where 
the legislator has decided that the infringement of sectoral rules would put the environment at 
intolerable risk. 

Objective 3: Ensure effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanction types and levels for 
environmental crime. 

 

 

 

Option 3a: Introduce minimum maximum sanction levels. 

Option 3b: Option 3a plus aggravating circumstances and accessory sanctions. 

Option  3c:  Option  3b  plus  an  obligation  to  link  the  level  of  fines  to  the 
financial situation of legal person and/or illegal profits. 

The preferred option is 3c, as all measures address different aspects of effective sanctioning 
and reinforce each other. 

Objective 4: Foster cross-border investigation and prosecution. 

A  package  of  provisions  directly  fostering  cross-border  cooperation,  such  as  harmonised 
effective investigative tools, the obligation to cooperate through Europol, Eurojust and OLAF, 
and rules on jurisdiction.  

Objective  5:  Improve  informed  decision-making  on  environmental  crime  through 
improved collection and communication of statistical data. 

 

Option  5a:  Oblige  Member  States  to  collect  and  regularly  report  to  the 
Commission statistical data related to environmental crime. 

EN 

12 

  EN 

 

Option  5b:  Option  5a plus  an obligation  on the  Member States to  collect  and 
report statistical data according to harmonised common standards. 

The preferred option is 5b.  

Objective  6:  Improve  the  operational  effectiveness  of  national  enforcement  chains  to 
foster detection, investigation, prosecution and sanctioning. 

A package of obligations to foster practical implementation, such as the provision of targeted 
and regular training at all levels of the enforcement chain, overarching national environmental 
crime strategies and awareness-raising measures. 

Preferred package  

Under  objective  1,  removing  the  annexes  and  instead  refining  the  definition  of  what 
constitutes environmental crime in Article 3 and adding new environmental crime categories 
under the same article is likely to improve the effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions 
of environmental crime, especially with regard to cross-border cooperation. However, in the 
future  there  would  be  also  a  need  to  regularly  update  the  Directive  through  legislative 
procedure, if new environmental crime areas are to be added to the Directive’s scope. There is 
no simpler way to do this, as the definitions of environmental crime categories are an essential 
component of the Directive and require a decision by the European legislator.  

Under  objective  2,  both  endangerment  crime  and  crime  that  requires  the  manifestation  of 
damage are necessary to respond adequately to environmental offences. The current Directive 
is built on a combination of these two types of crime definition. The proposal will have to add 
new  endangerment  crime  categories  and  specify  more  exactly  which  behaviour  is 
criminalised;  it  will  also  have  to  add  information  enabling  it  to  be  determined  what  can 
constitute environmental damage.  

More precise definitions of  unclear terms  –  such as ‘substantial  damage’ and ‘negligible or 
non-negligible  quantity’  –  will  improve  the  clarity  of  the  Directive.  The  focus  on 
endangerment crime and risky behaviour will allow effective sanctioning in cases where it is 
difficult  to  establish the actual damage or where no damage occurred. Hence, the combined 
application  of  both  options  may  lead  to  the  increased  effectiveness  of  investigations  and 
prosecutions of environmental crime.  

Under  objective  3,  the  package  of  measures  on  sanctions  (option  3c  –  minimum  maximum 
sanctions, aggravating circumstances, accessory sanctions, dependency of the level of fines on 
illegal  profits  and  the  financial  situation  of  the  offender)  will  lead  to  more  effective, 
proportionate, dissuasive and uniform sanction levels across the EU and in practice across the 
EU.  In  addition,  the  minimum  maximum  levels  of  imprisonment  sanctions  will  give  law 
enforcement  practitioners  access  to  investigative  tools,  which  are  only  available  for  crime 
punishable  by  a  certain  minimum  maximum  level  of  penalties.  This  will  lead  to  more 
effective investigations and facilitate cross-border cooperation.  

The measures under objective 4 (approximation of investigative tools, obligation to cooperate 
through  EU-agencies,  setting  up  of  national  contact  points)  will  directly  foster  cross-border 
cooperation,  complement  and  reinforce  each  other  and  lead  to  investigations  that  are  more 
effective  as  many  environmental  crime  cases  can  only  be  conducted  successfully  cross-
border.  

The preferred option under  objective 5 will lead to  a  commonly defined minimum  standard 
for the collection of data on environmental crime procedures and thus to statistical data that is 
comparable across the EU.  

EN 

13 

  EN 

The package of measures proposed under objective 6 (training/specialisation, cooperation and 
coordination  requirements,  awareness  raising,  national  strategies)  will  have  a  positive 
influence on the effectiveness on the ground at all levels of the enforcement chain (inspectors, 
police, prosecution, criminal judges). 

As the Directive needs improvement in all six problem areas, the combination of the preferred 
options  under  each  objective  should  result  in  the  best  overall  package.  In  combination,  the 
preferred options can reach cumulative impacts that go beyond what could be achieved by the 
individual preferred options.  

Cross-border cooperation will be fostered not only by the measures under objective 4 but also 
through  the  Directive’s  broader  scope  allowing  such  cooperation  in  more  environmental 
areas. More precise definitions of what constitutes environmental crime under objective 2 will 
reduce  the  different  perceptions  in  the  Member  States  that  have  so  far  hampered  or  even 
ended  cooperation.  The  definition  of  maximum  sanction  levels  not  only  ensures  more 
dissuasive  sanctioning,  it  also  opens  the  door  to  effective  cross-border  investigative  tools 
provided for in legislative instruments that can only apply as of a certain sanction level for a 
given  crime  category.  Under  objective  6,  better  training  and  specialisation  according  to 
comparable  standards  in  the  Member  States  will  also  directly  facilitate  cross-border 
cooperation. 

The ability of law enforcement practitioners to better anticipate a case’s  chances of success, 
leading  to  more  cases  being  prosecuted,  is  strengthened  by  more  precise  definitions  of 
environmental  crime  (objective  2)  and  better  training  and  specialisation  under  objective  6. 
Improved  cross-border  cooperation  (objective  4)  and  the  availability  of  more  dissuasive 
sanction types and levels (objective 3) are further factors that could facilitate the decision to 
invest the resources needed to tackle environmental crime cases. 

The  effectiveness  and  dissuasiveness  of  environmental  criminal  investigations  will  be 
achieved  not  just  through  more  appropriate  sanctioning  by  means  of  the  preferred  option 
under objective 3. More effective investigations through the combined effects of the preferred 
options  under  objectives  1,  2,  4  and  6  as  described  above  will  also  contribute  to  a  criminal 
justice system that deters environmental crime. 

In  this  way,  the  preferred  options  not  only  best  serve  the  respective  objectives  but  also 
strengthen the overall effectiveness of the Directive beyond each individual specific objective. 

Who is impacted by the Directive?  

Member States and public authorities  

Provisions on the implementation of the ECD are expected to strengthen the effectiveness of 
the  enforcement  chain  and  ensure  comparability  of  efforts  to  combat  environmental  crime 
across the EU. They may create some costs for environmental, law enforcement and judicial 
authorities in the Member States, both one-off and ongoing. However, the mid and long-term 
benefits  will  greatly  outweigh  these.  National  authorities  will  need  to  provide  additional 
human and material resources (mainly in the police and prosecution offices, as the institutions 
most often responsible for investigation and prosecution of environmental crime). Equally, an 
obligation for Member States to collect and report statistical data according to new and more 
harmonised standards  could  create  an  additional  administrative burden: in terms  of possibly 
adapting  the  systems  in  place  to  record  cases,  and  in  terms  of  elaborating  those  statistics  at 
national level before transmitting them to the EU. All Member States would need to provide 
some  degree  of  additional  training  to  relevant  professionals  along  the  enforcement  chain, 
taking into account the revised terms of the Directive and additional personnel. The resources 
required  depend  on  the  extent  to  which  Member  States  already  provide  regular  training  on 

EN 

14 

  EN 

environmental crime. Finally, there are some additional costs associated with the setting up of 
national  focal  points  in  various  institutions  and  the  development  of  national  strategies  to 
combat environmental crime.  

EU businesses 

There  are  no  direct  costs  for  EU  businesses  associated  with  the  Directive;  their  compliance 
costs stem from administrative environmental law. More effective law enforcement in the area 
of  environmental  crime  would  protect  legally-operating  businesses  from  unfair  competition 
stemming  from  illegal  business  activity.  Furthermore,  reputational  damage  for  an  industry 
(e.g.  waste  management,  chemical  production)  that  is  impacted  by  illegal  activity  would  be 
reduced, providing additional benefits for compliant businesses. As environmental crime will 
continue to be linked to a breach of administrative laws, there is limited risk that businesses 
could  be  sanctioned  for  environmental  activity  that  is  permitted  under  administrative  law, 
with the exception of specific and well-defined situations mentioned in the Directive. 

SMEs 

SMEs  may  face  somewhat  higher  pressure  due  to  less  capacity  to  pay  fines  and/or  engage 
legal  expertise  and  carry  out  due  diligence  activities.  The  option  of  linking  fines  to  the 
financial  situation  of  a  company,  in  addition  to  other  circumstantial  aspects  of  the  crime, 
could reduce the vulnerability of SMEs to such fines.  

EU citizens 

More  effective  enforcement  of  environmental  criminal  legislation  is  expected  to  have  a 
positive impact on society at large. In addition to the quality of life benefits associated with 
environmental protection, reduction in  criminal  activity supports better  governance, reduced 
corruption and reduction of the risks posed by large organised criminal groups. 

• 

Regulatory fitness and simplification 

This  impact  assessment  did  not  identify  any  potential  to  simplify  the  Directive  or  reduce 
unnecessary costs.  

The Directive – being a criminal law instrument – does not produce any additional costs for 
citizens, businesses and SMEs. This was confirmed during the stakeholder consultations. 

The proposal will contain a number of additional provisions aimed to add  preciseness to the 
currently very generic Directive, clarify its scope, give more exact definitions of crimes, and 
ensure  the  effectiveness,  proportionality  and  dissuasiveness  of  penalties.  This  will  simplify 
and facilitate practical implementation by Member State authorities and thus ensure  that the 
Directive will reach better its objectives. 

The proposal also contains new provisions requiring Member States to take specific measures 
that  will  ensure  the  Directive  is  effectively  implemented  in  practice  (training  measures, 
awareness-raising  measures,  measures  to  strengthen  cross-border  cooperation,  measures  to 
provide  the  necessary  resources,  etc.).  Although  these  appear  to  be  new  obligations  that 
produce  costs  for  the  Member  States,  the  provisions  in  question  actually  only  explicitly  lay 
down what is in any event a Member State obligation. Member States are not only required to 
transpose  the  Directive  into  national  law,  they  also  have  to  take  the  necessary  practical 
implementation measures. The evaluation showed that practical implementation is deficient in 
all Member States  and along the whole enforcement chain.  The obligations in  the Directive 
are  therefore  necessary  to  ensure  Member  State  compliance.  The  implementation  measures 
required  in  the  proposal  are  measures  that  practitioners  have  identified  as  most  pertinent  to 
enable  them  to  enforce  the  national  provisions  transposing  the  Directive.  Training  in 

EN 

15 

  EN 

particular has been referred to as an essential need to improve law enforcement with regard to 
environmental crime. 

• 

Fundamental rights 

The Directive is likely to have a positive impact on the level of environmental protection, the 
subject of Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Improving 
the environment will help improve the physical well-being (health) of citizens– this is covered 
by human dignity. Therefore, it will also positively influence the right to life (Article 2 of the 
Charter), the right to physical integrity (Article 3), the care and well-being of children (Article 
24), the right to healthy working conditions (Article 31) and the right to preventive and other 
health care (Article 35).  

This  Directive  –  being  a  criminal  law  instrument  –  will  have  to  be  transposed  into  national 
law  respecting  the  fundamental  rights  and  observing  the  principles  in  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  (‘the  Charter’)  as  recognised  in  the  TEU. 
Specifically, it should be transposed and applied with due respect for the right to protection of 
personal  data (Article 8  of the Charter), the freedom  to  conduct  a business  (Article 16), the 
presumption  of  innocence  and  right  of  defence  (Article  48),  the  principles  of  legality  and 
proportionality of criminal offences and penalties (Article 49), and the right not to be tried or 
punished  twice  in  criminal  proceedings  for  the  same  offence  (Article  50).  In  implementing 
this Directive, Member States should ensure that the procedural rights of suspected or accused 
persons in criminal proceedings are observed. The obligations under this Directive are without 
prejudice  to  Member  State  obligations  under  EU  law  on  procedural  rights  in  criminal 
proceedings. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

The  current  proposal  has  negligible  budgetary  implications  for  Member  States  and  for  the 
Commission.  Specific  information  on  the  financial  implications  for  the  Commission  can  be 
found in the legislative financial statement attached to this legislative package.  

The  Commission  has  two  kinds  of  costs:  one-off,  and  recurring.  The  first  financial 
implications  for the Commission  are linked to  the fifth  objective of the  revision:  improving 
statistical data collection and reporting on environmental crime. The Commission’s costs for 
this  objective  are  EUR  155  000  in  2025.  This  overall  cost  is  divided  into  three  kinds  of 
expenditure. First, the definition of minimum standards will cost  EUR 110 000and is a one-
off  cost  which  will  occur  only  in  2025.  The  second  cost  is  linked  with  the  maintenance  of 
standards and is  an annual  recurring  cost  of  EUR  16 000. The last cost  associated  with  this 
objective is the biennial report on Member States data from the Commission, which is also an 
annual recurring cost of EUR 25 000.  

Besides those costs for the fifth objective of the revision, the Commission will also  need to 
provide for  another  one-off cost  for  its  reporting obligations.  The legislative proposal  states 
that the Commission will have to produce two reports. The first is about the Member States’ 
transposition of the Directive and will cost EUR 405 000 divided between the cost of hiring a 
contractor to produce the study, i.e. EUR 350 000, and the review of it by Commission staff, 
i.e. EUR 54 600. The second report that the Commission has to produce is a study  that will 
analyse the effectiveness of the Directive with a certain series of indicators. This study, which 
will happen after the end of the current MFF, will cost EUR 420 000.  

Hence,  the  costs  for  the  Commission  in  2025  all  included  would  be  EUR  560  000  and  the 
recurring annual costs linked with the Directive would be EUR 45 000. This evaluation does 

EN 

16 

  EN 

not include the costs of the report on the effectiveness of the Directive, which would happen 
after the current MFF.  

The financial implications of the Directive for Member States are linked with three objectives 
of  its  revision:  improving  effective  cooperation  and  coordination  between  Member  States 
(objective  4),  improving  statistical  data  collection  and  reporting  on  environmental  crime 
(objective 5), and improving effective operation of the enforcement chain (objective 6).  

Regarding objective 4, there will be two sets of costs for all Member States: for investigative 
tools,  and  for  setting  up  national  contact  points.  On  investigative  tools,  the  data  were  not 
available to  enable an initial assessment of the cost. However, for the  setting up of national 
contact  points,  the  cost  for  all  Member  States  will  vary  between  EUR  475  600  and 
EUR 792 700 depending on the option chosen by the Member States.  

Regarding  objective  5,  several  kinds  of  costs  for  Member  States  can  be  identified.  Two  of 
them are one-off costs: for the setting up of a national coordination procedure, which would 
cost EUR 146 200 for all Member States, and for defining minimum standards, which would 
cost  EUR  280  000.  Two  costs  linked  with  objective  5  are  not  one-off  but  recurring.  First, 
Member States will have to maintain the standards, and for all Member States this should cost 
EUR  35 000. Coordination, collection and reporting  will cost  EUR  220  000 for all Member 
States. This means the overall amount of the costs for Member States for objective 5 is around 
EUR 683 000.  

Regarding objective 6, Member States would again have several kinds of costs: for training, 
raising public awareness, defining and implementing national strategies and increasing staff. 
As training is one of the main support measures of the Directive, it has been estimated that for 
all  Member  States  training  will  cost  EUR  7  800  000.  The  cost  related  to  national  strategies 
should be divided into one-off and recurring costs. The definition and first implementation of 
national  strategies  will  cost  EUR  864  000  for  all  Member  States.  Once  this  first  part  is 
completed, Member States will have recurring costs which have been estimated  at EUR 325 
000 for  all Member States.  Finally, the increase  in staff linked with  this  Directive has been 
estimated at EUR 4 million for all Member States. Hence, all the costs for objective 6 come to 
around EUR 13 million for all Member States.  

Those  costs  should  be  assessed  against  how  much  loss  environmental  crimes  account  for. 
According to UNEP and Interpol estimates, published in June 2016, the annual loss caused by 
environmental crime is between USD 91 billion and USD 258 billion. 

5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements 

The proposal seeks to correct the deficiencies of the current Directive and therefore sets out 
various measures for implementation, monitoring, evaluation and reporting.  

First,  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Directive,  minimum  standards  for  the  reporting  and 
collection of statistical data on environmental crimes will  need to be established through an 
implementing act. No later than one year after the Directive’s entry into force, Member States 
will have to develop a national strategy to combat environmental crime and set up an action 
plan  to  transpose  the  Directive.  This  will  enable  the  Commission  to  assess  both  the  revised 
Directive’s transposition by Member States, and their commitment to fighting environmental 
crime more efficiently.  

The  implementation  plan  and  evaluation  and  reporting  arrangements  do  not  stop  after  the 
Directive’s entry into force. Member States will have 18 months after the entry into force of 

EN 

17 

  EN 

the  Directive  to  transpose  it  into  national  legislation.  Two  years  after  the  end  of  this 
transposition  period,  the  Commission  will  have  to  produce  a  report  on  how  Member  States 
transposed the Directive. Five years after the end of the transposition period, the Commission 
must produce a study on the Directive’s effectiveness to evaluate its added value. In addition 
to  these  monitoring  procedures,  every  two  years  Member  States  must  produce  a  report 
containing  information  relating  to  the  Directive,  such  as  their  national  strategy  or  their 
coordination  and  cooperation  measures.  On  the  basis  on  the  data  transmitted  by  Member 
States, the Commission will also produce statistical reports on environmental crime.  

• 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

Article 1: Subject matter  

This provision sets out the purpose of the Directive, and in particular its aim of supporting the 
protection of the environment by laying down criminal offences and sanctions.  

Article 2: Definitions  

This  provision  contains  definitions  of  terms  used  in  the  Directive,  including  a  refined 
definition of ‘unlawfulness’ for the purpose of defining environmental criminal offences. 

Article 3: Offences  

This provision describes the criminal offences covered by this Directive. Some of the offences 
are from the current Directive, some are amended and clarified versions of existing ones, and 
some are new offences. Furthermore, terms used in the definition of offences are clarified in 
that they specify elements that need to be taken into account when investigating, prosecuting 
and  adjudicating  criminal  offences:  in  particular,  ‘substantial  damage’,  ‘likely’  to  cause 
damage and ‘negligible quantity’.  

Article 4: Inciting, aiding and abetting and attempt  

Article 4 criminalises  inciting,  and  aiding and abetting the commission  of criminal  offences 
referred to in Article 3(1). Also, attempt to commit certain criminal offences, listed in Article 
4, are criminalised.  

Article 5: Penalties for natural persons  

This article provides minimum standards to ensure that the offences referred to in Articles 3 
and 4 are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties. In addition, 
the  proposal  requires  that  Member  States  introduce  specific  sanction  levels  and  types  for 
environmental criminal  offences. The  categorisation proposed  reflects  the seriousness  of the 
offences.  For  instance,  paragraph  2  states  that  offences  referred  to  in  Article  3  should  be 
punishable  by  a  maximum  term  of  imprisonment  of  at  least  ten  years  if  they  cause  or  are 
likely to cause death or serious injury to any person.  

Paragraph 5 aims at Member States taking measures to ensure that the offences referred to in 
Articles  3  and  4  can  be  subject  to  additional  sanctions  and  measures  to  allow  for  a  tailored 
response to different types of criminal behaviour.  

Article 6: Liability of legal persons 

This article contains obligations to ensure the liability of legal persons for offences referred to 
in  Articles  3  and  4  where  such  offences  have  been  committed  for  their  benefit.  This  article 
also provides that Member States should make sure that legal persons can be held accountable 
for  a  lack  of  supervision  and  control  that  has  made  possible  the  commission  of  an  offence 
referred to in Article 3 and 4 for the benefit of the legal person. Furthermore, the liability of 
the legal person should not exclude criminal proceedings against natural persons.  

EN 

18 

  EN 

Article 7: Sanctions for legal persons  

This  article  sets  out  sanctions  applicable  to  legal  persons  involved  in  the  criminal  offences 
covered by this proposal.  

Article 8: Aggravating circumstances 

This  article  sets  out  the  aggravating  circumstances  to  be  taken  into  account  when  sanctions 
are applied to an offence referred to in Articles 3 and 4.  

Article 9: Mitigating circumstances 

This article sets out mitigating circumstances to be considered when sanctions are applied to 
an offence referred to in Articles 3 and 4.  

Article 10: Freezing and confiscation  

This provision makes sure that Member States give the opportunity to competent authorities 
to freeze and confiscate the proceeds derived from offences covered by this proposal.  

Article 11: Limitation periods for criminal offences 

This  article  lays  down  provisions  on  limitation  periods  in  order  to  allow  the  competent 
authorities  to  investigate,  prosecute  and  adjudicate  the  criminal  offences  covered  by  this 
proposal during a certain time period.  

Article 12: Jurisdiction 

This article lays down provisions on jurisdiction to  make sure that Member  States  establish 
jurisdiction for offences covered by the proposal and that they inform the Commission if they 
decide  to  extend  this  jurisdiction  in  specific  cases  where  the  offence  is  committed  outside 
their territory.  

Article  13:  Protection  of  persons  who  report  environmental  offences  or  assist  the 
investigation  

This  provision  concerns  the  protection  of  persons  such  as  whistleblowers,  environmental 
defenders and others reporting information or providing evidence to an investigation relating 
to environmental criminal offences. 

Article 14: Rights for the public concerned to participate in proceedings  

This provision concerns procedural rights to participate in criminal proceedings, which should 
be granted to the public concerned as set out in Article 2. 

Article 15: Prevention  

This  provision  requires  Member  States  to  take  preventive  actions  to  reduce  environmental 
offences. 

Article 16: Resources  

This provision aims at ensuring that national authorities which detect, investigate, prosecute 
or adjudicate environmental offences have a sufficient number of qualified staff and sufficient 
financial, technical and technological resources necessary to perform their roles effectively.  

Article 17: Training  

This provision aims at enhancing training activities along the enforcement chain to ensure that 
all  parties  involved  have  the  necessary  specialised  skills  and  abilities  to  perform  their  roles 
effectively.  

Article 18: Investigative tools  

EN 

19 

  EN 

This  provision  lays  down  that  special  investigative  tools  must  be  made  available  for  the 
investigation of the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4. 

Article  19:  Coordination  and  cooperation  between  competent  authorities  within 
Member States 

This provision requires Member States to ensure coordination and cooperation at strategic and 
operational level among all their competent authorities involved in the prevention of and fight 
against environmental crime.  

Article 20: National Strategy on combating environmental crime 

This  provision  aims  at  ensuring a strategic  approach to  combating environmental  crime and 
includes  aspects  to  be  addressed by a national  strategy which  will need to be established in 
each Member State. 

Article 21: Data collection and statistics  

This provision addresses the need to systematically collect information on efforts to combat 
environmental  crime  and  to  provide  statistical  data  on  environmental  crime.  It  requires 
Member States to collect, publish and send relevant statistical data to the Commission. It also 
establishes  an  obligation  for  the  Commission  to  regularly  publish  a  report  based  on  the 
statistical data provided  by the Member States. This provision also aims to  help address the 
current limited availability of environmental crime data which would assist in evaluating the 
effectiveness of national systems in fighting environmental criminal offences.  

Article 22: Implementing powers  

This  provision  complements  Article 25 and aims at  strengthening the obligation of Member 
States  to  send  statistical  data  to  the  Commission,  by  requiring  the  Commission  to  adopt  an 
implementing act defining minimum common standards for the reporting of statistical data. 

Article 23: Committee Procedure  

This provision addresses the need for the Commission to be assisted by a Committee in order 
to adopt the draft implementing act.  

Articles 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29  

These  articles  contain  further  provisions  on  transposition  by  Member  States,  reporting  by 
Member States, evaluation and reporting by the Commission, entry into force and application 
of Directive 2005/35/EC and replacement of Directive 2008/99/EC by this Directive.  

EN 

20 

  EN 

 
 
2021/0422 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directive 
2008/99/EC 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Articles 83(2) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee19, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

According to Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 191 of 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Union is committed 
to  ensuring  a  high  level  of  protection  and  improvement  of  the  quality  of  the 
environment.  

The Union continues to be concerned with the rise in environmental criminal offences 
and  their  effects,  which  undermine  the  effectiveness  of  Union  environmental 
legislation. These offences are moreover increasingly extending beyond the borders of 
the Member States in which the offences are committed. Such offences pose a threat to 
the environment and therefore call for an appropriate and effective response. 

The  existing  systems  of  penalties  under  Directive  2008/99/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council20  and  environmental  sectoral  law  have  not  been 
sufficient in all environmental policy area to achieve compliance with  Union law for 
the  protection  of  the  environment.  Compliance  should  be  strengthened  by  the 
availability  of  criminal  penalties,  which  demonstrate  social  disapproval  of  a 
qualitatively different nature compared to administrative penalties.  

The  effective  investigation,  prosecution  and  adjudication  of  environmental  criminal 
offences should be improved. The list of environmental criminal offences which were 
set  out  in  Directive  2008/99/EC  should  be  revised  and  additional  categories  of 
offences  based  on  the  most  serious  breaches  of  Union  environmental  law  should  be 
added.  Provisions  on  sanctions  should  be  strengthened  in  order  to  enhance  their 
deterrent effect as well as the enforcement chain in charge of detecting, investigating, 
prosecuting and adjudicating environmental criminal offences.  

19 
20 

OJ C, , p. . 
Directive  2008/99/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19  November  2008  on  the 
protection of the environment through criminal law (OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 28). 

EN 

21 

  EN 

                                                 
(5)  Member States should criminalise offence categories and provide for greater precision 
on  the  definitions  of  the  offence  categories,  and  harmonisation  concerning  sanction 
types and levels.  

(6)  Member  States  should  provide  for  criminal  penalties  in  their  national  legislation  in 
respect of serious infringements of provisions of Union law concerning protection of 
the  environment.  In  the  framework  of  the  common  fisheries  policy,  Union  law 
provides for comprehensive set of rules for control and enforcement under Regulation 
(EC)  No  1224/200921  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  1005/2008  in  case  of  serious 
infringements,  including  those  that  cause  damage  to  the  marine  environment.  Under 
this system the Member States have the choice between administrative and/or criminal 
sanctioning  systems.  In  line  with  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  the 
European  Green  Deal22  and  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  203023,  certain 
intentional  unlawful  conduct  covered  under  Regulation  (EC)  No  1224/2009  and 
Regulation (EC) 1005/200824 should be established as criminal offences.  

(7) 

(8) 

21 

22 

23 

24 

In order to constitute an environmental offence under this Directive, conduct should be 
unlawful under Union law protecting the environment or national laws, administrative 
regulations or decisions giving effect to that Union law. The conduct which constitutes 
each  category  of  criminal  offence  should  be  defined  and,  where  appropriate,  a 
threshold which needs to be met for the conduct to be criminalised should be set. Such 
conduct should be considered a criminal offence when committed intentionally and, in 
certain  cases,  also  when  committed  with  serious  negligence.  Illegal  conduct  that 
causes death or serious injury of persons, substantial damage or a considerable risk of 
substantial  damage  for  the  environment  or  is  considered  otherwise  as  particularly 
harmful  to  the  environment  constitutes  a  criminal  offence  when  committed  with 
serious  negligence.  Member  States  remain  free  to  adopt  or  maintain  more  stringent 
criminal law rules in that area. 

A  conduct  should  be  considered  unlawful  also  when  it  is  carried  out  under  an 
authorisation  by  a  competent  authority  in  a  Member  State  if  such  authorisation  was 
obtained  fraudulently,  or  by  corruption,  extortion  or  coercion.  Moreover,  operators 
should  take  the  necessary  steps  to  comply  with  the  legislative,  regulatory  and 
administrative  provisions  concerning  the  protection  of  environment  applicable  when 
they carry out the respective activity, including by complying with their obligations, as 
laid down in applicable EU and national laws, in procedures governing amendments or 
updates to existing authorisations. 

Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 404/2011 of  8 April  2011  laying  down  detailed  rules 
for  the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 1224/2009  establishing  a  Community  control 
system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 112, 30.4.2011, p. 
1–153).  
COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT,  THE 
EUROPEAN  COUNCIL,  THE  COUNCIL,  THE  EUROPEAN  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE  AND  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  REGIONS  The  European  Green  Deal, 
COM/2019/640 final. 
COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT,  THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE 
OF  THE  REGIONS  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030  Bringing  nature  back  into  our  lives, 
COM/2020/380 final 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1005/2008  of  29 September  2008  establishing  a  Community  system  to 
prevent,  deter and eliminate  illegal, unreported and  unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) 
No 2847/93,  (EC)  No 1936/2001  and  (EC)  No 601/2004  and  repealing  Regulations  (EC)  No 1093/94 
and (EC) No 1447/1999, (OJ L 286, 29.10.2008, p. 1–32). 

EN 

22 

  EN 

                                                 
 
(9) 

The  environment  should  be  protected  in  a  wide  sense,  as  set  out  under  Article  3  (3) 
TEU and Article 191 TFEU, covering all natural resources - air, water, soil, wild fauna 
and flora including habitats - as well as services provided by natural resources.  

(10)  The acceleration of climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation, 
paired with tangible examples of their devastating effects, have led to the recognition 
of  the  green  transition  as  the  defining  objective  of  our  time  and  a  matter  of 
intergenerational equity. Therefore, when Union legislation covered by this Directive 
evolves,  this  Directive  should  also  cover  any  updated  or  amended  Union  legislation 
falling  within  the  scope  of  criminal  offences  defined  under  this  Directive,  when  the 
obligations  under  Union  law  remain  unchanged  in  substance.  However,  when  new 
legal  instruments  prohibit  new  conduct  harmful  to  the  environment,  this  Directive 
should be amended in order to add to the categories of criminal offences also the new 
serious breaches of Union environmental law.  

(11)  Qualitative and quantitative thresholds used to define environmental criminal offences 
should be clarified by providing a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which should 
be taken into account when assessing such thresholds by authorities which investigate, 
prosecute and adjudicate offences. This should promote the coherent application of the 
Directive and a more effective fight against environmental crimes as well as provide 
for legal certainty. However, such thresholds or their application should not make the 
investigation, prosecution or adjudication of criminal offences excessively difficult.  

(12) 

In criminal proceedings and trials, due account should be taken of the involvement of 
organised criminal  groups operating in ways that negatively impact the environment. 
Criminal  proceedings  should  address  corruption,  money  laundering,  cyber-crime  and 
document fraud and – in relation to business activities – the intention of the offender 
to  maximise  profits  or  save  expenses,  where  these  occur  in  the  context  of 
environmental  crime.  These  crime  forms  are  often  interconnected  with  serious 
environmental crime forms and should therefore not be dealt with in isolation. In this 
respect, it is of particular concern that some environmental crimes are committed with 
the tolerance or active support of the competent administrations or officials performing 
his/her  public  duty.  In  certain  cases  this  can  even  take  the  form  of  corruption. 
Examples  of  such  behaviours  are  turning  a  blind  eye  or  remaining  silent  on  the 
infringement  of  laws  protecting  the  environment  following  inspections,  deliberately 
omitting inspections or controls for example with regard to whether the conditions of a 
permit  are  being  respected  by  the  permit-holder,  resolutions  or  votes  in  favour  of 
granting illegal licences or issuing falsified or untrue favourable reports. 

(13) 

Inciting, and aiding and abetting the criminal offences committed intentionally should 
also  be  punishable.  An  attempt  to  commit  a  criminal  offence  that  causes  death  or 
serious injury of a person, substantial damage to the environment or is likely to cause 
substantial damage to the environment or is otherwise considered particularly harmful 
should also constitute a criminal offence when committed intentionally. 

(14)  Sanctions  for  the  offences  should  be  effective,  dissuasive  and  proportionate.  To  this 
end, minimum levels for the maximum term of imprisonment should be set for natural 
persons.  Accessory  sanctions  are  often  seen  as  being  more  effective  than  financial 
sanctions  especially  for  legal  persons.  Additional  sanctions  or  measures  should  be 
therefore  available  in  criminal  proceedings.  These  should  include  the  obligation  to 
reinstate  the  environment,  exclusion  from  access  to  public  funding,  including  tender 
procedures, grants and concessions and withdrawal of permits and authorisations. This 

EN 

23 

  EN 

is  without  prejudice  to  the  discretion  of  judges  or  courts  in  criminal  proceedings  to 
impose appropriate sanctions in the individual cases.  

(15)  Where national law provides for it, legal persons should also be held criminally liable 
for environmental criminal offences according to this Directive. Member States whose 
national law does not provide for the criminal liability of legal persons should ensure 
that  their  administrative  sanctioning  systems  provide  for  effective,  dissuasive  and 
proportionate  sanctions  types  and  levels  as  laid  down  in  this  Directive  in  order  to 
achieve its objectives. Financial situation of legal persons should be taken into account 
to ensure the dissuasiveness of the sanction imposed. 

(16)  A  further  approximation  and  effectiveness  of  sanction  levels  imposed  in  practice 
should be fostered through common aggravating circumstances that reflect the severity 
of the crime committed. Where the death of, or serious injury to, a person, have been 
caused and where these elements are not already constituent for the criminal offence, 
these  could  be  considered  as  aggravating  circumstances.  Equally,  when  an 
environmental  criminal  offence  causes  substantial  and  irreversible  or  long-lasting 
damage to an entire ecosystem, this should be an aggravating circumstance because of 
its  severity,  including  in  cases  comparable  to  ecocide.  As  the  illegal  profits  or 
expenditure  that  can  be  generated  or  avoided  through  environmental  crime  are  an 
important  incentive  for  criminals,  these  should  be  taken  into  account  when 
determining the appropriate level of sanctioning in the individual case.  

(17)  Where the crimes are of a continuing nature, they should be brought to an end as soon 
as  possible.  Where  offenders  have  made  financial  gains,  such  gains  should  be 
confiscated.  

(18)  This  Directive  should  apply  without  prejudice  to  the  general  rules  and  principles  of 
national criminal law on the sentencing or the application and execution of sentences 
in accordance with the specific circumstances in each individual case. 

(19)  Member States should lay down rules concerning limitation periods necessary in order 
to  enable  them  to  counter  environmental  criminal  offences  effectively,  without 
prejudice  to  national  rules  that  do  not  set  limitation  periods  for  investigation, 
prosecution and enforcement.  

(20)  The obligations in this Directive to provide for criminal penalties should not exempt 
Member  States  from  the  obligation  to  provide  for  administrative  sanctions  and  other 
measures in national law for breaches established in Union environmental legislation.  

(21)  Member  States  should  define  the  scope  of  administrative  and  criminal  law 
enforcement clearly with regard to environmental offences according to their national 
law.  In  the  application  of  national  law  transposing  this  Directive,  Member  States 
should ensure that the imposition of criminal sanctions and of administrative sanctions 
respects the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 
including the prohibition of ne bis in idem.  

(22)  Furthermore, judicial and administrative authorities in the Member States should have 
at their disposal a range of criminal sanctions and other measures to address different 
types of criminal behaviour in a tailored and effective manner.  

(23)  Given,  in  particular,  the  mobility  of  perpetrators  of  illegal  conduct  covered  by  this 
Directive,  together  with  the  cross-border  nature  of  offences  and  the  possibility  of 
cross-border  investigations,  Member  States  should  establish  jurisdiction  in  order  to 
counter such conduct effectively. 

EN 

24 

  EN 

(24)  Environmental  criminal  offences  harm  nature  and  society.  By  reporting  breaches  of 
Union environmental law, people perform a service of public interest and play a key 
role  in  exposing  and  preventing  such  breaches,  and  thus  safeguarding  the  welfare  of 
society. Individuals in contact with an organisation in the context of their work-related 
activities are often the first to know about threats or harm to the public interest and the 
environment. Persons who report irregularities are known as whistleblowers. Potential 
whistleblowers are often discouraged from  reporting their concerns or suspicions for 
fear  of  retaliation.  Such  persons  should  benefit  from  balanced  and  effective 
whistleblowers  protection  set  out  under  Directive  (EU)  2019/1937of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council25 . 

(25)  Other  persons  may  also  possess  valuable 

information  concerning  potential 
environmental criminal offences. They may be members of the community affected or 
members of society at large taking an active part in protecting the environment. Such 
persons who  report environmental crimes as  well  as persons  who cooperate with  the 
enforcement of such offences should be provided the necessary support and assistance 
in  the  context  of  criminal  proceedings,  so  that  they  are  not  disadvantaged  for  their 
cooperation but supported and assisted. These persons should also be protected from 
being harassed or unduly prosecuted for reporting such offences or their cooperation in 
the criminal proceedings.  

(26)  Since  nature  cannot  represent  itself  as  a  victim  in  criminal  proceedings,  for  the 
purpose of effective enforcement members of the public concerned, as defined in this 
Directive  taking  into  account  Articles  2(5)  and  9(3)  of  the  Aarhus  Convention26, 
should have the possibility to act on behalf of the environment as a public good, within 
the  scope  of  the  Member  States’  legal  framework  and  subject  to  the  relevant 
procedural rules.  

(27)  Lack  of  resources  and  enforcement  powers  for  national  authorities  which  detect, 
investigate, prosecute or adjudicate environmental criminal offences creates obstacles 
for the effective prevention and punishment of environmental crimes. In particular, the 
shortage of resources is capable of preventing authorities from taking any action at all 
or  limiting  their  enforcement  actions,  allowing  offenders  to  escape  liability  or  to 
receive  punishment  does  not  correspond  to  the  gravity  of  the  offence.  Therefore, 
minimum criteria concerning resources and enforcement powers should be established.  

(28)  The  effective  functioning  of  the  enforcement  chain  depends  on  a  range  of  specialist 
skills.  As the complexity  of the challenges posed by  environmental offences  and the 
technical  nature  of  such  crime  require  a  multidisciplinary  approach,  a  high  level  of 
legal  knowledge,  technical  expertise  as  well  as  a  high  level  of  training  and 
specialisation within all relevant  competent  authorities are necessary. Member States 
should  provide  training  appropriate  to  the  function  of  those  who  detect,  investigate, 
prosecute  or  adjudicate  environmental  crime.  To  maximise  the  professionalism  and 
effectiveness  of  enforcement  chain,  Member  States  should  also  consider  assigning 
specialised  investigation  units,  prosecutors  and  criminal  judges  to  deal  with 
environmental  criminal  cases.  General  criminal  courts  could  provide  for  specialised 
chambers  of  judges.  Technical  expertise  should  be  made  available  to  all  relevant 
enforcement authorities.  

25 

26 

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and  of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the 
protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305/17). 
United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe  (UNECE)  Convention  on  Access  to  Information, 
Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. 

EN 

25 

  EN 

                                                 
(29)  To  ensure  successful  enforcement,  Member  States  should  make  available  effective 
investigative  tools  for  environmental  offences  such  as  those  which  exist  in  their 
national  law  for  combating  organised  crime  or  other  serious  crimes.  These  tools 
should include among others the interception of communications, covert surveillance 
including  electronic  surveillance,  controlled  deliveries,  the  monitoring  of  bank 
accounts and other financial investigation tools. These tools should be applied in line 
with the principle of proportionality and in full respect of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union. In accordance with national law, the nature and gravity 
of the offences under investigation should justify the use of these investigative tools. 
The right to the protection of personal data must be respected. 

(30)  To  ensure  an  effective,  integrated  and  coherent  enforcement  system  that  includes 
administrative,  civil  and  criminal  law  measures,  Member  States  should  organise 
internal  cooperation  and  communication  between  all  actors  along  the  administrative 
and  criminal  enforcement  chains  and  between  punitive  and  remedial  sanctioning 
actors.  Following  the  applicable rules, Member  States should also  cooperate through 
EU agencies, in particular Eurojust and Europol, as well as with EU bodies, including 
the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Anti-Fraud Office 
(OLAF), in their respective areas of competence. 

(31)  To ensure a coherent approach to combating environmental offences, Member States 
should  adopt,  publish  and  periodically  review  a  national  strategy  on  combating 
environmental  crime,  establishing  objectives,  priorities  and  corresponding  measures 
and resources needed.  

(32)  To effectively tackle the criminal offences referred to in this Directive, it is necessary 
that  competent  authorities  in  the  Member  States  collect  accurate,  consistent  and 
comparable data on the scale of and trends in environmental offences and the efforts to 
combat  them  and  their  results.  These  data  should  be  used  for  preparing  statistics  to 
serve  the  operational  and  strategic  planning  of  enforcement  activities  as  well  as  for 
providing  information  to  citizens.  Member  States  should  collect  and  report  to  the 
Commission  relevant  statistical  data  on  environmental  offences.  The  Commission 
should  regularly  assess  and  publish  the  results  based  on  the  data  transmitted  by  the 
Member States.  

(33)  The statistical data collected under this Directive on environmental offences should be 
comparable  between  the  Member  States  and  collected  on  the  basis  of  common 
minimum standards. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of 
this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to define 
the standard format for statistical data transmission. Those powers should be exercised 
in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council27.  

(34)  The obligations under this Directive are without prejudice to Union law on procedural 
rights in criminal proceedings. In implementing this Directive, Member States should 
ensure  that  the  procedural  rights  of  suspected  or  accused  persons  in  criminal 
proceedings are fully respected.  

(35)  Alternatives – please delete one option according to the IRL choice: 

27 

Regulation  (EU)  No  182/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  February  2011 
laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States 
of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13). 

EN 

26 

  EN 

                                                 
(36) 

[non-participation:] In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol 
No 21  on  the  position  of  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  in  respect  of  the  area  of 
freedom,  security  and  justice,  annexed  to  the  TEU  and  to  the  TFEU,  and  without 
prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this 
Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application. OR 

[participation:] In accordance with Article 3 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on 
the  position  of  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  in  respect  of  the  area  of  freedom, 
security and justice, annexed to the  TEU and to  the TFEU, Ireland has notified [, by 
letter of …,] its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive.  
(37)  Directive  2005/35/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council28  was 
supplemented  by  Directive  2009/123/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council29  with  provisions  on  criminal  offences  and  penalties  for  ship-source 
discharges of polluting substances. Such offences and penalties should fall within the 
scope  of  this  Directive.  Therefore,  for  Member  States  participating  in  this  Directive, 
Directive 2009/123/EC should be replaced accordingly. 

(38) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  1  and  2  of  Protocol  No  22  on  the  position  of  Denmark 
annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of 
this Directive and is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application.  

(39)  Since  the  objectives  of  this  Directive,  namely  to  ensure  common  definitions  of 
environmental  criminal  offences  and  the  availability  of  effective,  dissuasive  and 
proportionate  criminal  sanctions  for  serious  environmental  offences,  cannot  be 
sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and 
effects  of  this  Directive,  be  better  achieved  at  Union  level,  the  Union  may  adopt 
measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 TEU. 
In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  as  set  out  in  that  Article,  this 
Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective. 

(40)  This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised 
in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including 
the  protection  of  personal  data,  the  freedom  of  expression  and  information,  the 
freedom to conduct a business, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the 
presumption  of  innocence  and  right  of  defence,  the  principles  of  legality  and 
proportionality  of  criminal  offences  and  penalties,  and  the  right  not  to  be  tried  or 
punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same offence. This Directive seeks to 
ensure  full  respect  for  those  rights  and  principles  and  should  be  implemented 
accordingly, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 

Subject matter 

This Directive establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal  offences and 
sanctions in order to protect the environment more effectively. 

28 

29 

Directive  2005/35/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7  September  2005  on  ship-
source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 11). 
Directive 2009/123/EC of the European Parliament and of  the Council of 21 October 2009 amending 
Directive  2005/35/EC  on  ship-source  pollution  and  on  the  introduction  of  penalties  for  infringements 
(OJ L 280, 27.10.2009, p. 52). 

EN 

27 

  EN 

                                                 
Article 2 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this Directive, the following definitions apply: 

(1) 

‘unlawful’ means a conduct infringing one of the following: 

(a)  Union legislation, which irrespective of its legal basis contributes to the pursuit 
of the objectives of Union policy of protecting the environment as set out in the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;  

(b) 

a law, an administrative regulation of a Member State or a decision taken by a 
competent  authority  of  a  Member  State  that  gives  effect  to  the  Union 
legislation referred to in point (a). 

The conduct shall be deemed unlawful even if carried out under an authorisation by a 
competent  authority  in  a  Member  State  when  the  authorisation  was  obtained 
fraudulently or by corruption, extortion or coercion;  

 ‘habitat  within  a  protected  site’  means  any  habitat  of  species  for  which  an  area  is 
classified  as  a  special  protection  area  pursuant  to  Article  4(1)  or  (2)  of  Directive 
2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council30, or any natural habitat 
or a habitat of species for which a site is designated as a special area of conservation 
pursuant to Article 4(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC31;  

‘legal person’ means any legal entity having such status under the applicable national 
law,  except  for  States  or  public  bodies  exercising  State  authority  and  for  public 
international organisations; 

‘public concerned’ means the persons affected or likely to be affected by the offences 
referred  to  in  Articles  3  or  4.  For  the  purposes  of  this  definition,  persons  having  a 
sufficient  interest  or  maintaining  the  impairment  of  a  right  as  well  as  non-
governmental  organisations  promoting  the  protection  of  the  environment  and 
meeting any proportionate requirements under national law shall be deemed to have 
an interest; 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

‘victim’  has  the  meaning  attributed  to  it  in  Article  2(1)  point  (a)  of  Directive 
2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council32. 

Article 3 

Offences 

1. 

Member States shall ensure that the following conduct constitutes a criminal offence 
when it is unlawful and committed intentionally: 

(a) 

the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or substances 
or  ionising  radiation  into  air,  soil  or  water  which  causes  or  is  likely  to  cause 

30 

31 

32 

Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on  the 
conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7). 
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna 
and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7). 
Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing 
minimum  standards  on  the  rights,  support  and  protection  of  victims  of  crime,  and  replacing  Council 
Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, (OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57–73).  

EN 

28 

  EN 

                                                 
death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the quality of air, 
the quality of soil or the quality of water, or to animals or plants; 

(b) 

the  placing  on  the  market  of  a  product  which,  in  breach  of  a  prohibition  or 
another requirement, causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any 
person  or  substantial  damage  to  air,  water  or  soil  quality,  or  to  animals  or 
plants as a result of the product's use on a larger scale; 

(c) 

the manufacture, placing on the market or use of substances, whether on their 
own, in mixtures or in articles, including their incorporation into articles, when:  

(i) 

this  activity  is  restricted  pursuant  to  Title  VIII  and  Annex  XVII  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council33; or 

(ii) 

this  activity  is  prohibited  pursuant  to  Title  VII  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1907/2006; or 

(iii)   this activity is not in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of 

the European Parliament and of the Council34; or 

(iv)   this activity is not  in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 528/2012 of 

the European Parliament and of the Council35; or  

(v) 

(vi) 

this activity falls under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council36; or 

this  activity  is  prohibited  pursuant  to  Annex  I  to  Regulation  (EU) 
2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council37, 

and  it  causes  or  is  likely  to  cause  death  or  serious  injury  to  any  person  or 
substantial  damage  to  the  quality  of  air,  the  quality  of  soil  or  the  quality  of 
water, or to animals or plants;  

(d) 

the execution of projects referred to in Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92/EU 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council38  without  a  development 
consent or an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment, which 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the  European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 
concerning  the  Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction  of  Chemicals  (REACH), 
establishing  a  European  Chemicals  Agency,  amending  Directive  1999/45/EC  and  repealing  Council 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  793/93  and  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1488/94  as  well  as  Council 
Directive  76/769/EEC  and  Commission  Directives  91/155/EEC,  93/67/EEC,  93/105/EC  and 
2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1). 
Regulation  (EC)  No 1107/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21 October  2009 
concerning  the  placing  of  plant  protection  products  on  the  market  and  repealing  Council  Directives 
79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC, (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1–50). 
Regulation  (EU)  No 528/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22 May  2012 
concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ L 167, 27.6.2012, p. 1–
123).  
Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on 
classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 
67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ L 353, 31.12.2008, p. 
1). 
Regulation  (EU)  2019/1021  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  on 
persistent organic pollutants (OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 45). 
Directive  2011/92/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  December  2011  on  the 
assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, 
p. 1). 

EN 

29 

  EN 

                                                 
causes or is likely to cause substantial damage to the factors defined in Article 
3(1) of Directive 2011/92/EU; 

(e) 

the collection, transport, recovery or disposal of waste, the supervision of such 
operations  and  the  after-care  of  disposal  sites,  including  action  taken  as  a 
dealer or a broker (waste management), when an unlawful conduct: 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i)    concerns  hazardous  waste  as  defined  in  Article  3(2)  of  Directive 
2008/98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council39 and  is 
undertaken in a non-negligible quantity;  

(ii) 

concerns other waste than referred to in point (i) and causes or is likely to 
cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the 
quality of air, the quality of soil or the quality of water, or to animals or 
plants; 

the shipment of waste, within the meaning of Article 2(35) of Regulation (EC) 
No  1013/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council40  when  such 
shipment  is  undertaken  in  a  non-negligible  quantity,  whether  executed  in  a 
single shipment or in several shipments which appear to be linked; 

the  recycling  of  ships  falling  within  the  scope  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1257/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council41,  without 
complying with the requirements of Article 6(2), point (a) of that Regulation;  

the ship-source discharges of polluting substances referred to in Article 4(1) of 
Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council42 on ship-
source  pollution  and  on  the  introduction  of  penalties,  including  criminal 
penalties,  into  any  of  the  areas  referred  to  in  Article  3(1)  of  that  Directive, 
provided  that  the  ship-source  discharges  do  not  satisfy  the  exceptions  set  in 
Article  5  of  that  Directive;  this  provision  shall  not  apply  to  individual  cases, 
where the ship-source discharge does not cause deterioration in the quality of 
water,  unless  repeated  cases  by  the  same  offender  in  conjunction  result  in 
deterioration in the quality of water; 

(i) 

the  installation,  operation  or  dismantling  of  an  installation  in  which  a 
dangerous  activity 
in  which  dangerous  substances, 
preparations  or  pollutants  are  stored  or  used  falling  within  the  scope  of 
Directive  2012/18/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council43, 
Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council44  or 

is  carried  out  or 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste 
and repealing certain Directives (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3–30). 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1013/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  June  2006  on 
shipments of waste (OJ L 190, 12.7.2006, p. 1). 
Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 
on ship recycling and amending Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and Directive 2009/16/EC (OJ L 330, 
10.12.2013, p. 1). 
Directive  2005/35/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7 September  2005  on  ship-
source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 11–21). 
Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of 
major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council 
Directive 96/82/EC Text with EEA relevance (OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 1–37). 
Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24 November  2010  on 
industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17–119). 

EN 

30 

  EN 

                                                 
(j) 

(k) 

(l) 

(m) 

(n) 

Directive  2013/30/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council45  and 
which  causes  or  is  likely  to  cause  death  or  serious  injury  to  any  person  or 
substantial  damage  to  the  quality  of  air,  the  quality  of  soil  or  the  quality  of 
water, or to animals or plants; 

the  manufacture,  production,  processing,  handling,  use,  holding,  storage, 
transport,  import,  export  or  disposal  of  radioactive  material  falling  within  the 
scope  of  Council  Directive  2013/59/Euratom46,  Council  Directive 
2014/87/Euratom47 or Council Directive 2013/51/Euratom48, which causes or is 
likely to  cause death  or serious injury to  any person or substantial  damage to 
the  quality  of  air,  the  quality  of  soil  or  the  quality  of  water,  or  to  animals  or 
plants; 

the  abstraction  of  surface  water  or  groundwater  which  causes  or  is  likely  to 
cause substantial damage to the ecological status or potential of surface water 
bodies or to the quantitative status of groundwater bodies; 

the  killing,  destruction,  taking  of,  possession,  sale  or  offering  for  sale  of  a 
specimen or specimens of wild fauna or flora species listed in Annexes IV and 
V (when species in Annex V are subject to the same measures as those adopted 
for  species  in  Annex  IV)  to  Council  Directive  92/43/EEC49  and  the  species 
referred to  in  Article 1 of Directive 2009/147/EC  of the European Parliament 
and of the Council50, except for cases where the conduct concerns a negligible 
quantity of such specimens;  

trading  in  specimens  of  wild  fauna  or  flora  species  or  parts  or  derivatives 
thereof  listed  in  Annexes  A  and  B  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  338/9751, 
except  for  cases  where  the  conduct  concerns  a  negligible  quantity  of  such 
specimens;  

the  placing  or  making  available  on  the  Union  market  of  illegally  harvested 
timber  or  of  timber  products  that  were  made  of  illegally  harvested  wood, 
falling  within  the  scope  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 995/2010  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council52, except for cases where the conduct concerns a 
negligible  quantity;  [If  a  Regulation  on  the  making  available  on  the  Union 
market as well as export from the Union of certain commodities and products 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

Directive  2013/30/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12 June  2013  on  safety  of 
offshore oil and gas operations and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (OJ L 178, 28.6.2013, p. 66–106). 
Council  Directive  2013/59/Euratom  of  5 December  2013  laying  down  basic  safety  standards  for 
protection  against  the  dangers  arising  from  exposure  to  ionising  radiation,  and  repealing  Directives 
89/618/Euratom,  90/641/Euratom,  96/29/Euratom,  97/43/Euratom  and  2003/122/Euratom  (OJ  L  13, 
17.1.2014, p. 1–73). 
Council Directive 2014/87/Euratom of 8 July 2014 amending Directive 2009/71/Euratom establishing a 
Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations (OJ L 219, 25.7.2014, p. 42–52). 
Council Directive 2013/51/Euratom of 22 October 2013 laying down requirements for the protection of 
the  health  of  the  general  public  with  regard  to  radioactive  substances  in  water  intended  for  human 
consumption (OJ L 296, 7.11.2013, p. 12–21). 
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna 
and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50). 
Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30 November  2009  on  the 
conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7–25). 
Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and 
flora by regulating trade therein (OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1). 
Regulation  (EU)  No 995/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20 October  2010 
laying  down  the  obligations  of  operators  who  place  timber  and  timber  products  on  the  market  (OJ  L 
295, 12.11.2010, p. 23–34).  

EN 

31 

  EN 

                                                 
associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation 
(EU)  No  995/2010  is  adopted  before  this  Directive,  point  (n)  to  be  replaced 
with a criminal offence within the scope of Article 3 of that Regulation.]  

(o) 

any conduct which causes the deterioration of a habitat within a protected site, 
within  the  meaning  of  Article  6(2)  of  the  Directive  92/43/EEC,  when  this 
deterioration is significant; 

(p) 

introduction or spread of invasive alien species of Union concern when: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the  conduct  breaches  restrictions  set  out  in  Article  7(1)  of  Regulation 
(EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council53; 

the  conduct  breaches  a  condition  of  permit  issued  under  Article  8  or  of 
authorisation  granted under Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 
and causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or 
substantial damage to the quality of air, the quality of soil or the quality 
of water, or to animals or plants; 

(q)  production,  placing  on  the  market, import,  export,  use,  emission  or  release  of 
ozone depleting substances as defined in Article 3 (4) of Regulation (EC) No 
1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council54 or of products and 
equipment containing or relying on such substances;  

(r) 

production, placing on the market,  import, export,  use, emission or release of 
fluorinated  greenhouse  gases  as  defined  in  Article  2  (1)  of  Regulation 
517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council55 or of products and 
equipment containing or relying on such gases. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  conduct  referred  to  in  paragraph  1,  points  (a), 
(b),  (c),  (d),  (e),  (f),  (h),  (i),  (j),  (k),  (m),  (n),  (p)  (ii),  (q),  (r)  also  constitutes  a 
criminal offence, when committed with at least serious negligence. 

Member States shall ensure that their national legislation specifies that the following 
elements  shall  be  taken  into  account,  where  relevant,  when  assessing  whether  the 
damage  or  likely  damage  is  substantial  for  the  purposes  of  the  investigation, 
prosecution and adjudication of offences referred to in paragraph 1, points (a) to (e), 
(i), (j), (k) and (p): 

(a) 

the baseline condition of the affected environment; 

(b)  whether the damage is long-lasting, medium term or short term; 

(c) 

severity of the damage; 

(d) 

spread of the damage; 

(e) 

reversibility of the damage. 

Member States shall ensure that their national legislation specifies that the following 
elements shall be taken into account when assessing whether the activity is likely to 

Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on 
the  prevention  and  management  of  the  introduction  and  spread  of  invasive  alien  species  (OJ  L  317, 
4.11.2014, p. 35). 
Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 
on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ L 286, 31.10.2009, p. 1–30) 
Regulation  (EU)  No 517/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16 April  2014  on 
fluorinated  greenhouse  gases  and  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No 842/2006  (OJ  L  150,  20.5.2014,  p. 
195–230).  

2. 

3. 

4. 

53 

54 

55 

EN 

32 

  EN 

                                                 
cause damage  to  the quality of  air, the quality of soil or the quality of water, or to 
animals or plants for the purposes of the investigation, prosecution and adjudication 
of offences referred to in paragraph 1, points (a) to (e), (i), (j), (k) and (p): 

(a) 

(b) 

the  conduct  relates  to  an  activity  which  is  considered  as  risky  or  dangerous, 
requires an authorisation which was not obtained or complied with;  

the extent to which the values, parameters or limits set out in legal acts or in an 
authorisation issued for the activity are exceeded; 

(c)  whether  the  material  or  substance  is  classified  as  dangerous,  hazardous  or 

otherwise listed as harmful to the environment or human health. 

5. 

Member States shall ensure that their national legislation specifies that the following 
elements  shall  be  taken  into  account  when  assessing  whether  the  quantity  is 
negligible  or  non-negligible  for  the  purposes  of  the  investigation,  prosecution  and 
adjudication of offences referred to in paragraph 1, points (e), (f), (l), (m), (n):  

(a) 

(b) 

the number of items subject to the offence;  

the  extent  to  which  the  regulatory  threshold,  value  or  another  mandatory 
parameter is exceeded; 

(c) 

the conservation status of the fauna or flora species concerned; 

(d) 

the cost of restoration of environmental damage. 

Article 4 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Inciting, aiding and abetting and attempt 

Member States shall ensure that inciting, and aiding and abetting the commission of 
any  of  the  criminal  offences  referred  to  in  Article  3(1)  are  punishable  as  criminal 
offences.  

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an attempt to commit 
any of the criminal offences referred to in Article 3 (1) points (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), 
(h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n), (p) (ii), (q), (r) when committed intentionally is punishable 
as a criminal offence. 

Article 5 

Penalties for natural persons  

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the offences referred 
to  in  Articles  3  and  4  are  punishable  by  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive 
criminal penalties.  

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that offences referred to 
in Article 3 are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years 
if they cause or are likely to cause death or serious injury to any person. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the offences referred 
to in Article 3(1) points (a) to (j), (n), (q), (r) are punishable by a maximum term of 
imprisonment of at least six years.  

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the offences referred 
to in Article 3(1) points (k), (l), (m), (o), (p) are punishable by a maximum term of 
imprisonment of at least four years. 

EN 

33 

  EN 

5. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that natural persons who 
have  committed  the  offences  referred  to  in  Articles  3  and  4  may  be  subject  to 
additional sanctions or measures which shall include: 

(a) 

obligation to reinstate the environment within a given time period;  

(b) 

fines; 

(c) 

temporary  or  permanent  exclusions  from  access  to  public  funding,  including 
tender procedures, grants and concessions; 

(d)  disqualification from directing establishments of the type used for committing 

the offence; 

(e)  withdrawal  of  permits  and  authorisations  to  pursue  activities  which  have 

resulted in committing the offence; 

(f) 

temporary bans on running for elected or public office;  

(g)  national  or  Union-wide  publication  of  the  judicial  decision  relating  to  the 

conviction or any sanctions or measures applied. 

Article 6 

Liability of legal persons 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

Member States shall ensure that legal persons can be held liable for offences referred 
to in Articles 3 and 4 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, based on: 

(a) 

a power of representation of the legal person; 

(b) 

an authority to take decisions on behalf of the legal person; 

(c) 

an authority to exercise control within the legal person. 

Member States shall also ensure that legal persons can be held liable where the lack 
of supervision or control by a person referred to in paragraph 1 has made possible the 
commission of an offence referred to in Articles 3 and 4 for the benefit of the legal 
person by a person under its authority. 

Liability  of  legal  persons  under  paragraphs  1  and  2  shall  not  exclude  criminal 
proceedings  against  natural  persons  who  are  perpetrators,  inciters  or  accessories  in 
the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4. 

Article 7 

Sanctions for legal persons 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held 
liable  pursuant  to  Article  6(1)  is  punishable  by  effective,  proportionate  and 
dissuasive sanctions.  

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  sanctions  or 
measures for legal persons liable pursuant to Article 6(1) for the offences referred to 
in Articles 3 and 4 shall include:  

(a) 

criminal or non-criminal fines; 

(b) 

the obligation to reinstate the environment within a given period;  

EN 

34 

  EN 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid; 

temporary  exclusion  from  access 
procedures, grants and concessions;  

to  public  funding, 

including 

tender 

temporary  or  permanent  disqualification  from  the  practice  of  business 
activities; 

(f)  withdrawal  of  permits  and  authorisations  to  pursue  activities  which  have 

resulted in committing the offence; 

(g)  placing under judicial supervision; 

(h) 

judicial winding-up;  

(i) 

(j) 

temporary  or  permanent  closure  of  establishments  used  for  committing  the 
offence;  

obligation  of  companies  to  install  due  diligence  schemes  for  enhancing 
compliance with environmental standards;  

(k)  publication of the judicial decision relating to the conviction or any sanctions 

or measures applied. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held 
liable  pursuant  to  Article  6(2)  is  punishable  by  sanctions  or  measures,  which  are 
effective, proportionate and dissuasive. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that offences referred to 
in  Article  3(1)  points  (a)  to  (j),  (n),  (q),  (r)  are  punishable  by  fines,  the  maximum 
limit of which shall be not less than 5% of the total worldwide turnover of the legal 
person [/undertaking] in the business year preceding the fining decision. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that offences referred to 
in Article 3(1) points (k), (l), (m), (o), (p) are punishable by fines, the maximum limit 
of which shall be not less than 3% of the total worldwide turnover of the legal person 
[/undertaking] in the business year preceding the fining decision. 

Member States shall take measures to  ensure that  the illegal  profits generated from 
the offence and the annual turnover of the legal person are taken into account when a 
decision is made on the appropriate level of a fine pursuant to paragraph 1. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Article 8 

Aggravating circumstances 

In so far as the following circumstances do not already form part of the constituent elements 
of  the  criminal  offences  referred  to  in  Article  3,  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary 
measures to ensure that, in relation to the relevant offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4, the 
following circumstances may be regarded as aggravating circumstances:  

(a) 

(b) 

the offence caused the death of, or serious injury to, a person; 

the offence caused destruction or irreversible or long-lasting substantial damage to an 
ecosystem; 

EN 

35 

  EN 

 
(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

the  offence  was  committed  in  the  framework  of  a  criminal  organisation  within  the 
meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA56; 

the offence involved the use of false or forged documents;  

the offence was committed by a public official when performing his/her duties; 

the offender committed similar previous infringements of environmental law;  

the  offence  generated  or  was  expected  to  generate  substantial  financial  benefits,  or 
avoided substantial expenses, directly or indirectly; 

the  offender's  conduct  gives  rise  to  liability  for  environmental  damage  but  the 
offender  does  not  fulfil  their  obligations  to  take  remedial  action  under  Article  6  of 
Directive 2004/35/EC57; 

the  offender  does  not  provide  assistance  to  inspection  and  other  enforcement 
authorities when legally required;  

the offender actively obstructs inspection, custom controls or investigation activities, 
or intimidates or interferes with witnesses or complainants.  

Article 9 

Mitigating circumstances 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that,  in  relation  to  the  relevant 
offences  referred  to  in  Articles  3  and  4,  the  following  circumstances  may  be  regarded  as 
mitigating circumstances:  

(a) 

(b) 

the offender restores nature to its previous condition; 

the  offender  provides  the  administrative  or  judicial  authorities  with  information 
which they would not otherwise have been able to obtain, helping them to: 

(i) 

identify or bring to justice the other offenders;  

(ii) 

find evidence.  

Article 10 

Freezing and confiscation 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure,  as  appropriate,  that  their 
competent authorities may freeze or confiscate, in accordance with Directive 2014/42/EU of 
the European Parliament and of the Council58, the proceeds derived from and instrumentalities 
used  or  intended  to  be  used  in  the  commission  or  contribution  to  the  commission  of  the 
offences as referred to in this Directive. 

56 

57 

58 

Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, 
OJ L 300/42.  
Directive  2004/35/CE  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21  April  2004  on 
environmental  liability  with  regard  to  the  prevention  and  remedying  of  environmental  damage  (OJ  L 
143, 30.4.2004, p. 56–75).   
Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing 
and  confiscation  of  instrumentalities  and  proceeds  of  crime  in  the  European  Union  (OJ  L  127, 
29.4.2014, p. 39). 

EN 

36 

  EN 

                                                 
Article 11  

Limitation periods for criminal offences  

1. 

2. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to  provide for  a limitation  period 
that enables the investigation, prosecution, trial and judicial adjudication of criminal 
offences  referred  to  in  Articles  3  and  4  for  a  sufficient  period  of  time  after  the 
commission  of  those  criminal  offences,  in  order  for  those  criminal  offences  to  be 
tackled effectively.  

Member  State  shall  the  take  necessary  measures  to  enable  the  investigation, 
prosecution, trial and judicial decision: 

(a) 

of offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 which are punishable by a maximum 
sanction of at least ten years of imprisonment, for a period of at least ten years 
from the time when the offence was committed, when offences are punishable;  

(b)  of offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 which are punishable by a maximum 
sanction of at least six years of imprisonment, for a period of at least six years 
from the time when the offence was committed, when offences are punishable; 

(c) 

of offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 which are punishable by a maximum 
sanction  of  at  least  four  years  of  imprisonment,  for  a  period  of  at  least  four 
years  from  the  time  when  the  offence  was  committed,  when  offences  are 
punishable.  

3. 

By  way  of  derogation  from  paragraph  2,  Member  States  may  establish  a  limitation 
period that is shorter than ten years, but not shorter than four years, provided that the 
period may be interrupted or suspended in the event of specified acts. 

4. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to enable the enforcement of:  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

a penalty of imprisonment in the case of a criminal offence which is punishable 
by  a  maximum  sanction  of  at  least  ten  years  of  imprisonment,  imposed 
following a final conviction for a criminal offence referred to in Articles 3 and 
4, for at least ten years from the date of the final conviction; 

a penalty of imprisonment in the case of a criminal offence which is punishable 
by  a  maximum  sanction  of  at  least  six  years  of  imprisonment,  imposed 
following a final conviction for a criminal offence referred to in Articles 3 and 
4, for at least six years from the date of the final conviction; 

a penalty of imprisonment in the case of a criminal offence which is punishable 
by  a  maximum  sanction  of  at  least  four  years  of  imprisonment,  imposed 
following a final conviction for a criminal offence referred to in Articles 3 and 
4, for at least four years from the date of the final conviction. 

These  periods  may  include  extensions  of  the  limitation  period  arising  from 
interruption or suspension. 

Article 12 

Jurisdiction  

1. 

Each  Member  State  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  establish  its  jurisdiction 
over the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 where: 

EN 

37 

  EN 

(a) 

(b) 

the offence was committed in whole or in part on its territory; 

the  offence  was  committed  on  board  a  ship  or  an  aircraft  registered  in  it  or 
flying its flag; 

(c) 

the damage occurred on its territory; 

(d) 

the offender is one of its nationals or habitual residents.  

2. 

A  Member  State  shall  inform  the  Commission  where  it  decides  to  extend  its 
jurisdiction  to  offences  referred  to  in  Articles  3  and  4  which  have  been  committed 
outside its territory, where: 

(a) 

the  offence  is  committed  for  the  benefit  of  a  legal  person  established  on  its 
territory; 

(b) 

the offence is committed against one of its nationals or its habitual residents; 

(c) 

the offence has created a severe risk for the environment on its territory.  

Where an offence referred to in Articles 3 and 4 falls within the jurisdiction of more 
than  one  Member  State,  these  Member  States  shall  cooperate  to  determine  which 
Member  State  shall  conduct  criminal  proceedings.  The  matter  shall,  where 
appropriate  and  in  accordance  with  Article  12  of  Council  Framework  Decision 
2009/948/JHA59, be referred to Eurojust.  

In cases referred to in paragraph 1, points (c) and (d), Member States shall take the 
necessary measures to  ensure that  the exercise of their jurisdiction is not subject  to 
the condition that a prosecution can be initiated only following a denunciation from 
the State of the place where the criminal offence was committed.  

Article 13 

Protection of persons who report environmental offences or assist the investigation 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  protection  granted 
under Directive (EU) 2019/1937, is applicable to persons reporting criminal offences 
referred to in Articles 3 and 4 of this Directive.  

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  persons  reporting 
offences referred to  in  Articles 3 and 4 of this  Directive and providing  evidence or 
otherwise  cooperating  with  the  investigation,  prosecution  or  adjudication  of  such 
offences are provided the necessary support and assistance in the context of criminal 
proceedings.  

3. 

1. 

2. 

Article 14 

Rights for the public concerned to participate in proceedings 

Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with their national legal system, members of 
the public concerned have appropriate rights to participate in proceedings concerning offences 
referred to in Articles 3 and 4, for instance as a civil party.  

59 

Council  Framework  Decision  2009/948/JHA  of  30  November  2009  on  prevention  and  settlement  of 
conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings (OJ L 328, 15.12.2009, p. 42). 

EN 

38 

  EN 

                                                 
Article 15 

Prevention 

Member  States  shall  take  appropriate  action,  such  as  information  and  awareness-raising 
campaigns and research and education programmes, to reduce overall environmental criminal 
offences, raise public awareness and reduce the risk of population of becoming a victim of an 
environmental  criminal  offence.  Where  appropriate,  Member  States  shall  act  in  cooperation 
with the relevant stakeholders. 

Article 16 

Resources 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  national  authorities  which  detect,  investigate,  prosecute  or 
adjudicate  environmental  offences  have  a  sufficient  number  of  qualified  staff  and  sufficient 
financial,  technical  and  technological  resources  necessary  for  the  effective  performance  of 
their functions related to the implementation of this Directive.  

Article 17 

Training 

Without prejudice to judicial independence and differences in the organisation of the judiciary 
across  the  Union,  Member  States  shall  request  those  responsible  for  the  training  of  judges, 
prosecutors,  police,  judicial  staff  and  competent  authorities’  staff  involved  in  criminal 
proceedings and investigations to provide at regular intervals specialised training with respect 
to  the objectives of this  Directive  and appropriate to  the functions  of the involved staff and 
authorities. 

Article 18 

Investigative tools  

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that effective investigative tools, 
such  as  those  which  are  used  in  organised  crime  or  other  serious  crime  cases,  are  also 
available for investigating or prosecuting offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4.  

Article 19 

Coordination and cooperation between competent authorities within a Member State 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  establish  appropriate  mechanisms  for 
coordination  and  cooperation  at  strategic  and  operational  levels  among  all  their  competent 
authorities  involved  in  the  prevention  of  and  the  fight  against  environmental  criminal 
offences. Such mechanisms shall be aimed at least at: 

(a) 

ensuring  common  priorities  and  understanding  of  the  relationship  between 
criminal and administrative enforcement;  

(b) 

exchange of information for strategic and operational purposes; 

(c) 

consultation in individual investigations;  

EN 

39 

  EN 

(d) 

the exchange of best practices;  

(e) 

assistance to European networks of practitioners working on matters relevant to 
combating environmental offences and related infringements, 

and  may  take  the  form  of  specialised  coordination  bodies,  memoranda  of  understanding 
between competent authorities, national enforcement networks and joint training activities. 

Article 20 

National strategy 

1. 

By [OP –  please insert  the date  – within  one year after the  entry into force of  this 
Directive], Member States shall establish, publish and implement a national strategy 
on combating environmental criminal offences which as a minimum shall address the 
following: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

the objectives and priorities of national policy in this area of offence; 

the  roles  and  responsibilities  of  all  the  competent  authorities  involved  in 
countering this type of offence; 

the modes of coordination and cooperation between the competent authorities; 

the use of administrative and civil law to address infringements related to the 
offences within the scope of this Directive; 

the resources needed and how specialisation of enforcement professionals will 
be supported; 

the  procedures  and  mechanisms  for  regular  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the 
results achieved; 

assistance  of  European  networks  working  on  matters  directly  relevant  to 
combating environmental offences and related infringements.  

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  strategy  is  reviewed  and  updated  at  regular 
intervals no longer than 5 years, on a risk-analysis-based-approach, in order to take 
account  of  relevant  developments  and  trends  and  related  threats  regarding 
environmental crime.  

Article 21 

Data collection and statistics 

Member  States  shall  collect  statistical  data  to  monitor  the  effectiveness  of  their 
systems to combat environmental criminal offences.  

The statistical data referred to in paragraph 1 shall include at least the following:  

(a) 

the number of environmental crime cases reported; 

(b) 

the number of environmental crime cases investigated; 

(c) 

the average length of the criminal investigations of environmental crimes; 

(d) 

the number of convictions for environmental crime;  

2. 

1. 

2. 

EN 

40 

  EN 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

the  number  of  natural  persons  convicted  and  sanctioned  for  environmental 
crime; 

the number of legal persons sanctioned for environmental crime or equivalent 
offences;  

the number of dismissed court cases for environmental crime; 

the  types  and  levels  of  sanctions  imposed  for  environmental  crime,  including 
per categories of environmental offences according to Article 3.  

Member States shall ensure that a consolidated review of their statistics is regularly 
published. 

Member States shall annually transmit to the Commission the statistical data referred 
to in paragraph 2 in a standard format established in accordance with Article 22. 

The  Commission  shall  regularly  publish  a  report  based  on  the  statistical  data 
transmitted  by  the  Member  States.  The  report  shall  be  published  for  the  first  time 
three years after the standard format referred to in Article 22 has been determined.  

Article 22  

Implementing powers 

The  Commission  shall  be  empowered  to  adopt  implementing  acts  establishing  the 
standard  format  for  data  transmission  referred  to  in  Article  21(4).  Those 
implementing  acts  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  examination  procedure 
referred to in Article 23(2).  

For  the  purposes  of  the  transmission  of  statistical  data,  the  standard  format  shall 
contain the following elements: 

(a) 

a common classification of environmental crimes; 

(b) 

a common understanding of counting units; 

(c) 

a  common  understanding  of  procedural 
stages 
prosecution, trial) in environmental crime proceedings;  

(investigation, 

(d) 

a common reporting format. 

Article 23  

Committee procedure 

The  Commission  shall  be  assisted  by  a  committee.  That  committee  shall  be  a 
committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.  

Where  reference  is  made  to  this  paragraph,  Article  5  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
182/2011 shall apply.  

Where the committee delivers no opinion, the Commission shall not adopt the draft 
implementing  act  and  Article  5(4),  third  subparagraph,  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
182/2011 shall apply. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

EN 

41 

  EN 

Article 24 

Transposition 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [OP – please insert the date – 
within  18  months  after  entry  into  force  of  the  Directive].  They  shall  immediately 
inform the Commission thereof. The methods of making such reference shall be laid 
down by Member States. 

When  Member  States  adopt  those  measures,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official 
publication.  Member  States  shall  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  text  of  the 
main  measures  of  national  law  which  they  adopt  in  the  field  covered  by  this 
Directive.  

Article 25  

Evaluation and reporting  

The  Commission  shall  by  [OP  –  please  insert  the  date  -  two  years  after  the 
transposition period is over], submit a report to the European Parliament and to the 
Council  assessing  the  extent  to  which  the  Member  States  have  taken  the  necessary 
measures  to  comply  with  this  Directive.  Member  States  shall  provide  the 
Commission with the necessary information for the preparation of that report. 

Every two years as of [OP – please insert the date one year after the transposition 
period  is  over],  Member  States  shall  send  the  Commission  a  report  within  three 
months  which  includes  a  summary  about  implementation  of  and  actions  taken  in 
accordance with Articles 15 to 17, 19 and 20. 

By [OP – please insert the date - five years after the transposition period is over], 
the  Commission  shall  carry  out  an  evaluation  of  the  impact  of  this  Directive  and 
submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council. Member States shall 
provide  the  Commission  with  necessary  information  for  the  preparation  of  that 
report.  

Article 26 

Replacement of Directive 2008/99/EC 

Directive 2008/99/EC is replaced with regard to the Member States bound by this Directive, 
without  prejudice  to  the  obligations  of  those  Member  States  with  regard  to  the  date  for 
transposition of that Directive into national law. With regard to the Member States bound by 
this  Directive,  references  to  Directive  2008/99/EC  shall  be  construed  as  references  to  this 
Directive. As regards Member States not bound by this Directive, they shall remain bound by 
Directive 2008/98/EC. 

Article 27 
Application of Directive 2005/35/EC 

Directive  2009/123/EC  shall  cease  to  apply  to  the  Member  States  participating  in  this 
Directive from the date of its transposition.  

EN 

42 

  EN 

Article 28 

Entry into force 

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal the European Union. 

Article 29 

Addressees  

This Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President

EN 

43 

  EN 

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

EN 

44 

  EN 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE ............................................... 44 

Title of the proposal/initiative .................................................................................... 44 

Policy area(s) concerned ............................................................................................ 44 

The proposal/initiative relates to: ............................................................................... 44 

Objective(s) ................................................................................................................ 44 

1.4.1.  General objective(s) ................................................................................................... 44 

1.4.2.  Specific objective(s) ................................................................................................... 44 

1.4.3.  Expected result(s) and impact .................................................................................... 45 

1.4.4. 

Indicators of performance .......................................................................................... 45 

1.5. 

Grounds for the proposal/initiative ............................................................................ 47 

1.5.1.  Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for 

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative .......................................................... 47 

1.5.2.  Added value of Union involvement (it may result from different factors, e.g. 

coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For 
the purposes of this point 'added value of Union involvement' is the value resulting 
from Union intervention which is additional to the value that would have been 
otherwise created by Member States alone. ............................................................... 49 

1.5.3.  Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past ................................................ 50 

1.5.4.  Compatibility with the Multiannual Financial Framework and possible synergies 

with other appropriate instruments............................................................................. 51 

1.5.5.  Assessment of the different available financing options, including scope for 

redeployment .............................................................................................................. 52 

1.6. 

1.7. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.2.1. 

2.2.2. 

Duration and financial impact of the proposal/initiative ........................................... 54 

Management mode(s) planned ................................................................................... 54 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES................................................................................. 55 

Monitoring and reporting rules .................................................................................. 55 

Management and control system(s) ........................................................................... 55 

Justification of the management mode(s), the funding implementation mechanism(s), 
the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed ........................................ 55 

Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up 
to mitigate them.......................................................................................................... 56 

2.2.3.  Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio of "control 

costs ÷ value of the related funds managed"), and assessment of the expected levels 
of risk of error (at payment & at closure) .................................................................. 56 

2.3. 

Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities .............................................................. 56 

3. 

3.1. 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE ............ 57 

Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) 
affected ....................................................................................................................... 57 

EN 

45 

  EN 

3.2. 

Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations ................................... 58 

3.2.1.  Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations.................................... 58 

3.2.2.  Estimated output funded with operational appropriations ......................................... 61 

3.2.3.  Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations ............................... 63 

3.2.3.1.  Estimated requirements of human resources.............................................................. 64 

3.2.4.  Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework.............................. 66 

3.2.5.  Third-party contributions ........................................................................................... 66 

3.3. 

Estimated impact on revenue ..................................................................................... 67 

EN 

46 

  EN 

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

1.1. 

Title of the proposal/initiative 

Proposal  for a Directive  on the protection of the environment  through criminal  law 
Amending Directive 99/2008/EC 

1.2. 

Policy area(s) concerned  

Environmental Protection  

Criminal law  

• 
• 

Procedural criminal law  
Substantive criminal law 

1.3. 

The proposal/initiative relates to:  

 a new action  

 a new action following a pilot project/preparatory action60  

 the extension of an existing action  

 a merger or redirection of one or more actions towards another/a new action  

1.4. 

Objective(s) 

1.4.1.  General objective(s) 

The  policy  ambition  and  main  objective  of  the  initiative  is  to  ensure  a  better 
protection of the environment by means of criminal law and by improving detection, 
investigation,  prosecution  and  sanctioning  of  environmental  crime.  The  envisaged 
new Environmental Crime Directive will help achieving the goals set by Article 191 
of the TFEU, the Green Deal and the Biodiversity Strategy. 

As  this  proposal  is  a  revision  of  a  former  Directive,  one  of  the  main  goals  of  this 
proposal  is  to  address  the  shortcomings  and  weaknesses  of  Directive  2008/99/EC 
identified during its evaluation in 2019-2020.(ndlr: “Specific objective).  

1.4.2. 

Specific objective(s) 

Specific objective No 

1. Improve the effectiveness of detection, investigation, prosecution and sanctioning 
of  environmental  crime  by  updating  the  scope  of  the  Directive  and  refine  the  legal 
technique used for the scope definition  

2. Improve the effectiveness of detection,investigation, prosecutions and sanctioning 
of environmental crime by clarifying or eliminating the undefined terms used in the 
current description of the environmental criminal offences.  

3.  Ensure  effective,  dissuasive  and  proportionate  sanction  types  and  levels  for 
environmental crime.  

4. Foster cross-border investigation and prosecution.  

60 

As referred to in Article 58(2)(a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation. 

EN 

47 

  EN 

 
                                                 
5.  Improve  informed  decision-making  on  environmental  crime  through  improved 
collection  and  dissemination  of  informaion  and  statistical  data  on  the  scale  of 
environmental crime and the efforts to combat it.  

6.Improve  the  overall  operational  effectiveness  of  national  enforcement  chains  to 
foster detection, investifation, prosecution and sanctioning of environmental crimes.  

1.4.3.  Expected result(s) and impact 

Specify the effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted. 

The main expected result of the initiative is to improve the EU legal framework on 
tackling  environmental  crime  and  to  strengthen  enforcement  at  national  level.  It  is 
acknowledged that criminal law is the last resort when other measures have not been 
sufficient to ensure compliance, which in this case proves essential for enforcing the 
Union’s environmental law.  

The  Directive  will  help  improving  the  effectiveness  of  national  enforcement  and 
sanctioning  systems  in  relation  to  environmental  crime  and  enhancing  public 
confidence. Even if it is not possible to have a quantitative approach of the expected 
results of the Directive on the overall protection of the environment, it is possible to 
have a qualitative approach of the impacts of an improved environmental protection 
to which the revised Directive will contribute.  

A  more  effective  Directive  which  leads  to  better  law  enforcement  by  criminal  law 
will  contribute  to  an  improved  environment  through  its  preventive  and  deterrent 
effects.  Where  there  is  an  effective  criminal  law  system  in  place,  environmental 
crime does not pay off. It will also have immediate positive social impacts on human 
life,  health  and  well-being.  The  revised  Directive  will  improve  the  tools  to  fight 
against environmental crimes and will also have a positive economic impact. Hence, 
it will help reduce the estimated profits of between USD 91 and 259 billion globally 
from  environmental  crimes,  which  are  losses  to  societies  through  losses  of  tax 
revenue,  revenue  loss  for  fair  playing  businesses  and  which  undermine  good 
governance.  

1.4.4. 

Indicators of performance 

Specify the indicators for monitoring progress and achievements 

The  success  of  this  proposal  could  not  be  measured  against  a  clear  baseline,  as 
systematic information on the scale of environmental crime and efforts to combat it 
in individual Member States is insufficient. Trends in environmental crime depend on 
the development of global trade, on new opportunities through digitalisation and the 
interplay  of  criminal  sanctioning  systems  with  civil  and  administrative  sanctioning 
systems in the Member States. 

The following qualitative and quantitative indicators are proposed for monitoring the 
progress and the success of the initiative: 

-  overall  improvement  of  enforcement  and  sanctioning  of  environmental  crime 
mirrored  in  increased  cooperation,  specialisation,  better  training  and  exchange  of 
information; 

- the numbers of environmental law cases successfully investigated and prosecuted;  

- the numbers of convictions;  

-the  type  and  levels  of  sanctions  imposed  that  must  become  more  effective, 

EN 

48 

  EN 

dissuasive and proportionate in practice; 

- number of officials trained on issues related to effective tackling of environmental 
crime; 

- existence or development of national strategies on combating environmental crime. 

The assessment through indicators of the efficiency of the Directive has to be done in 
context.  Nowadays,  within  Member  States,  there  are  only  few  environmental  crime 
cases  completed  successfully  and  sanction  levels  are  too  low.  There  have  been  no 
upward-trends in the past decade (see IA, section 1.2  – “evaluation of the Directive 
and  the  evaluation  final  report”).  Hence,  stable  upwards  trends  in  environmental 
cases  in  all  Member  States  would  point  to  the  Directive’s  effectiveness.  As 
environmental crime is growing globally at percentage between 5 and 7 % globally, a 
matching  growth  rate  of  successful  investigations  and  convictions  would  be 
considered a success. By contrast, if - at a later stage - environmental cases were to 
decrease, this might indicate that the Directive was successful in deterring criminals. 

Indicators of Performance 

The provisions below provide suggestions of monitoring indicators for each specific 
objective: 

  Broadening the scope of the Directive 

o  Indicator:  Number  of  investigations,  prosecutions,  convictions  and 

dismissed cases  

o  Baseline:  where  information  is  available,  there  have  been  no  upward 

trends in the Member States 

o  Success:  Stable  upward  trends  in  each  Member  State.  Ideally  an 
increase of between 5 and 7% which correspond to the rate at which 
environmental crime is estimated to grow every year  

  Define more precisely environmental crime types under article 3 : 

o  Indicator: as above 
o  Baseline: as above 
o  Success: as above 

  Foster effective, dissuasive and proportionate types and levels of sanctions  

o  Indicator: Levels of financial fines imposed on natural persons, levels 
of imprisonment sanctions, levels of financial fines imposed on legal 
persons  and  types  and  numbers  of  accessory  sanctions  imposed  on 
natural persons  

o  Baseline:  there  is  currently  no  or  only  very  few  and  scattered 
statistical  data  on  sanctions  imposed  on  environmental  crime.  The 
available  data  and  interviews  with  practitioners  show  that  sanctions 
are too low to be dissuasive 

o  Success:  Given  the  current  situation,  success  implementation  would 
show  that  sanctions  imposed  use  the  full  range  of  available  sanction 
types  and  levels.  Accessory  sanctions  imposed  should  show  that  all 
sanctions  types  are  used.  We  would  like  to  see  that  restoration  of 
damage and the removal of profits are applied systematically.  

EN 

49 

  EN 

 
 
 
  More cross border cooperation  

o  Indicators:  number  of  environmental  cases  at  Eurojust  and  OLAF, 
number  of  JITS  at  Eurojust,  number  of  SIENA  cases/messages  a 
Europol  and  number  of  contacts  with  national  contact  points,  to  be 
installed  

o  Baseline:  current  level  of  Eurojust,  OLAF,  SIENA,  professional 

networks are generally law 

o  Success: would be an increase of cross-border cooperation manifested 
in the figures at Eurojust, OLAF and Europol. Environmental crime is 
the  fourth  largest  crime  category  globally  and  thus  the  number  of 
environmental  cases  at  Europol  and  Eurojust  should  account  for 
higher portion of the total cases handled by these agencies. 

  More effective enforcement chain 

o  Indicators: same as the 1st objective with one addition: the number of 
Member  States  that  have  overarching  strategies  on  combating 
environmental crime, number of Member States that have specialized 
investigation  and  prosecution  units  and  court  chambers,  number  of 
Member  States  that  have  increased  their  law  enforcement  personnel 
and  number  of  police,  prosecutors, 
judges,  customs  officers, 
administrative inspectors that have received training.  

o  Baseline: same as the 1st objective  
o  Success: same as for the 1st objective 

1.5. 

Grounds for the proposal/initiative  

1.5.1.  Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for 

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative 

There are three types of requirements, which correspond to short, medium and long 
terms objectives. 

Short term requirements: 

1. 
2. 

3. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Definition of minimum standards regarding the collection of statistical data  
Member States shall transpose the directive within 18 months 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  conducts  inscribed  in  article  3  of  the 
proposal  constitute  a  criminal  offence,  when  unlawful  and  committed 
intentionally or with at least serious negligence 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  make  offences 
accessory to environmental crime are criminalised  

Member  States  shall  define  penalties  related  to  environmental  crimes  for 
natural and legal persons  

Member  States  shall  define  aggravating  and  mitigating  circumstances  of 
environmental crimes  

Member States shall define investigative tools  

Each  Member  State  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  establish  its 
jurisdiction over the offences referred to in the proposal 

Member  States  shall  ensure  coordination  and  cooperation  at  strategic  and 
operational  levels  among  all  competent  authorities  involved  in  the 

EN 

50 

  EN 

9. 

10. 

11. 

prevention of and the fight against environmental crime 

Member  States  shall  designate  a  national  contact  point  for  the  purpose  of 
exchanging information. Member States shall also ensure that these national 
contact  points  are  connected  to  the  [e-EDES  system]  and  they  have 
procedures in place so that urgent requests for assistance are promptly dealt 
with. Member States shall inform the Commission, Europol and Eurojust of 
their  appointed  point  of  contact.  They  shall  update  that  information  as 
necessary.  The  Commission  shall  forward  that  information  to  the  other 
Member States. 
Member States shall grant  any  recognized group, foundation or association 
which,  according  to  its  statutes,  aims  at  the  protection  of  the  environment, 
the right to have access to the file of cases concerning offences referred to in 
the proposal  
Member  States  shall  take  appropriate  action,  such  as  information  and 
awareness-raising campaigns and research and education programs, aimed to 
reduce overall environmental crime, raise awareness and reduce the risk of 
becoming  a  victim  of  environmental  crime.  Where  appropriate,  Member 
States shall act in cooperation with stakeholders. 

Medium term requirements:  

  Without  prejudice  to  the  rules  on  cross-border  cooperation  and 
mutual  legal  assistance  in  criminal  matters,  the  Member  States, 
the 
Eurojust, 
Commission  (OLAF)  shall,  within  their  respective  competences, 
cooperate  with  each  other  in  the  fight  against  the  criminal  offences 
referred to in Articles 3, 3a and 4.  

the  European  Public  Prosecutor's  Office,  and 

  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  officials  who  detect,  investigate, 
prosecute  or  adjudicate  environmental  offences,  such  as  judges, 
prosecutors,  police,  judicial  and  those  competent  authorities’  staff, 
receive regular specialist training appropriate to their functions. 
  Without  prejudice  to  judicial  independence  and  differences  in  the 
organisation  of the judiciary  across the Union,  Member States shall 
request  those  responsible  for  the  training  of  judges,  prosecutors, 
police,  judicial  and  those  competent  authorities’  staff  involved  in 
criminal  proceedings  and  investigations  to  provide  appropriate 
training with respect to the objectives of this Directive 

  Within  one  year  after  the  entering  into  force  of  this  Directive, 
Member  States  shall  establish  and  publish  a  national  strategy  on 
combating  environmental  crime  and  take  measures  to  esnure  its 
regular evaluation and update.  

  Member  States  shall  collect  systematic,  reliable  and  up-to  date 
statistics on environmental crime by each competent authority with a 
view to making consistent and coherent comparison and analysis of 
relevant information possible. 

  Member  States  shall  transmit  the  data  collected  pursuant  to 

paragraph 1 to the Commission on an annual basis.  

  The  Commission  shall  ensure  that  a  consolidated  review  of  the 
statistical  reports  and  national  strategies  of  implementation  is 
published and submitted to the competent specialized Union agencies 

EN 

51 

  EN 

and bodies. 

Long term requirements:  

  The  Commission  shall,  by  two  years  after  transposition  period  is 
over, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, 
assessing  the  extent  to  which  the  Member  States  have  taken  the 
necessary  measures  to  comply  with  this  Directive.  Member  States 
shall provide the Commission with the necessary information for the 
preparation of that report.  

  The  Commission  shall,  by  five  years  after  transposition  period  is 
over,  carry  out  an  evaluation  of  the  impact  of  this  Directive  on  the 
protection of environment through criminal law and submit a report 
to the European Parliament and to the Council. Member States shall 
provide 
the 
preparation of that report.  

the  Commission  with  necessary 

information  for 

1.5.2.  Added  value  of  Union  involvement  (it  may  result  from  different  factors,  e.g. 
coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For 
the purposes of this point 'added value of Union involvement' is the value resulting 
from  Union  intervention  which  is  additional  to  the  value  that  would  have  been 
otherwise created by Member States alone. 

Reasons for action at European level (ex-ante)  

The  existing  Directive  aimed  to  provide  a  harmonised  framework  to  address 
environmental crimes  throughout  the Union and  facilitate cross-border cooperation. 
However, as detailed in the evaluation report, despite the progress in creating an EU-
wide  common  set  of  definitions  of  environmental  crimes  and  requiring  more 
dissuasive  sanction  levels,  Member  States  on  their  own  have  not  been  able  to 
reconcile their respective understandings of environmental crime within the room for 
maneuver  the  Directive  has  left.  Similarly,  the  insufficient  sanction  levels  in  a 
number  of  Member  States  prevent  a  level  playing  field  across  the  EU  and  mutual 
recognition instruments from applying (such as the European Arrest Warrant and the 
European Investigation Order).  

Despite the Directive, the number of cross-border investigations  and convictions  in 
the  EU  of  environmental  crime  did  not  grow  substantially.  In  the  meantime,  in 
contrast, environmental crime is growing at annual rates of 5 to 7% globally, creating 
lasting damage for habitats, species, health of citizens and revenues of governments 
and businesses. 

Expected generated Union added value (ex-post)  

With a more effective Directive, the EU can provide the harmonised framework for a 
common  understanding  of  definitions  of  environmental  crimes  and  for  effective 
access  to  cross-border  investigative  tools.  By  providing  more  clarity  on  legal 
definitions and by approximating sanction levels, as well as by providing tools and 
obligations for cross-border cooperation among Member States, the revised Directive 
will  create  a  more  even  level  playing  field  with  equivalent  criminal  law  protection 
for  the  environment  across  the  EU  and  facilitate  cross-border  cooperation  on 
investigations, 
investigations  and  prosecutions.  By 
prosecutions  and  convictions,  EU  action  will  provide  for  clear  added  value  on 

facilitating  cross-border 

EN 

52 

  EN 

 
countering  environmental  crimes  which  typically  have  transnational  dimensions 
compared to what Member States acting alone can achieve. 

As  environmental  crime  often  undermines  legal  and  tax  paying  businesses,  which 
share an unknown but likely large share of the estimated annual global loss related to 
environmental crime of between USD 91 and 259 billion, an effective EU legislative 
framework on environmental crime will have an effect on the functioning of the EU 
single  market  as  well.  Without  such  EU  wide  legislation,  companies  operating  in 
Member  States  with  limited  definitions  of  environmental  crimes  or  lenient 
enforcement  regimes  can  have  a  competitive  advantage  over  the  companies 
established in Member States with stricter legal frameworks.  

An  effective  EU  wide  policy  on  environmental  crime  may  also  benefit  other  EU 
policy  objectives.  Environmental  crimes  are  often  linked  to  other  forms  of  crime 
such as money laundering, terrorism, tax fraud, forgery or other forms of organised 
crime  against  which  the  EU  has  adopted  a  range  of  legislation  in  recent  years.  A 
more effective EU legislation on environmental crime would contribute to effective 
criminal  law  enforcement  strategies,  at  the  EU  and  national  level  that  address  all 
relevant aspects of criminal interaction.  

1.5.3.  Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past 

As this proposal consists in a revision of a former Directive, the lessons learned from 
similar experiences in the past mainly focus on the drawbacks and benefits from the 
last  Directive.  To  that  extent,  the  Commission  has  conducted  an  evaluation  of  the 
Directive in 2019/2020. This report found that the Directive had an added value as it 
defined  for  the  first  time  a  common  legal  framework  for  environmental  criminal 
offences and required effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions.  

However, the Directive did not have much effect on the ground, namely the number 
of  environmental  crime  cases  successfully  investigated  and  sentenced  stayed  at  a 
very  low  level  and  generally  did  not  show  any  significant  upward  trends  over  the 
past 10 years. 

Moreover,  the  sanction  levels  imposed  were  too  low  to  be  dissuasive  and  cross-
border cooperation did not take place in a systematic manner.  

The Directive’s lack of effectiveness in practice is partly due to the generic nature of 
its provisions. This  can be explained by the EC-legislator’s limited competences in 
the field of criminal law under pre-Lisbon conditions, which did not allow going into 
more detail, especially on sanctions.  

In  addition,  poor  enforcement  in  the  Member  States  contributes  largely  to  the 
Directive not having much effect on the ground. The evaluation found considerable 
enforcement  gaps  in  all  Member  States  and  at  all  levels  of  the  enforcement  chain 
(police, prosecution and criminal courts). Deficiencies in the Member States include 
a lack of resources, specialised knowledge, awareness and prioritisation, cooperation 
and information sharing and an absence of overarching national strategies to combat 
environmental  crime  involving  all  levels  of  the  enforcement  chain  and  a  multi-
disciplinary approach. Moreover, the lack of coordination between the administrative 
and criminal law enforcement and sanctioning tracks often hinders effectiveness.  

It  was also found that the lack of reliable, accurate and complete statistical data on 
environmental  crime  proceedings  in  the  Member  States  did  not  only  hamper  the 

EN 

53 

  EN 

Commission’s evaluation but also prevents national policy-makers and practitioners 
from monitoring the effectiveness of their measures. 

1.5.4.  Compatibility  with  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  and  possible  synergies 

with other appropriate instruments 

The  proposed  Directive  on  the  protection  of  the  environment  through  criminal  law 
Amending Directive 99/2008/EC is consistent with the Green Deal Communication 
where it is clearly stated that “The Commission will also promote action by the EU, 
its  Member  States  and  the  international  community  to  step  up  efforts  against 
environmental  crime”  and  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  where  the  possibility  of 
reviewing  and  amending  the  former  directive  is  stated  in  the  Annex  of  the 
Communication.  In  July  2021,  the  Commission  presented  a  package  with  concrete 
proposals for a Green New Deal, aimed at reducing emissions by 55% by 2030 and 
at  making  Europe  climate  neutral  by  2050.  Criminal  law  is  only  a  part  of  this 
comprehensive  EU  strategy  to  protect  and  improve  the  status  of  the  environment, 
which is a priority for the current Commission. The Green Deal Communication and 
the  Biodiversity  Strategy  set  out  a  whole  range  of  measures  of  environmental 
protection that will pull together in a holistic approach, reinforce and influence each 
other. Criminal law measures will come in as a last resort when other measures have 
not been sufficient to ensure compliance. 

The proposal is also consistent with: 

The  EU  Action  Plan  against  Wildlife  Trafficking  to  improve  environmental 

• 
compliance in the field of wildlife trafficking; 

• 
The EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (EU SOCTA) 2021, 
which has identified “environmental crime” amongst the key crime threats facing the 
EU and therefore it has included environmental crime in the EMPACT 2022-2025; 

• 
The  new  EU  Strategy  to  tackle  Organised  Crime  covering  the  period  2021-
2025 presented the Commission in April 202, which named environmental crime as 
one of the future priorities of the EU’s fight against organised crime. 

The  objectives  of  this  proposal  are  supported  by  the  Multiannual  Financial 
Framework, which places an important emphasis on funding activities to protect the 
environment. Some synergies will exist with pre-existing programmes. An example 
would be the training activites derived from the proposal which most of them already 
exist and are provided by CEPOL, by Frontex training for law enforcement and by 
different professional networks such as EJTN and ERA for the judicial branch. Those 
organisations  already  benefit  from  EU  budget  through  Life  programme,  ISF  or  the 
Police and Justice programme and already provide formation on environmental law.  

1.5.5.  Assessment  of  the  different  available  financing  options,  including  scope  for 

redeployment 

In order to cope with the proposal new obligations such as monitoring the situation, 
increase  trainings,  provide  some  guidance  and  raising  awareness,  the  Commission 
will have to do an extra effort. Those efforts will rely on DG JUST and DG ENV as 
most of the tasks listed below will required some time management and some extra 
costs.  

EN 

54 

  EN 

1.6. 

Duration and financial impact of the proposal/initiative 

 limited duration  

–    in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY  

–    Financial  impact  from  YYYY  to  YYYY  for  commitment  appropriations  and 

from YYYY to YYYY for payment appropriations.  

 unlimited duration 

–  Implementation with a start-up period from 2022 to 2025, 

–  followed by full-scale operation. 

1.7.  Management mode(s) planned61  

 Direct management by the Commission 

–   by its departments, including by its staff in the Union delegations;  

–    by the executive agencies  

- Shared management with the Member States  

- Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to: 

–   third countries or the bodies they have designated; 

–   international organisations and their agencies (to be specified); 

–   the EIB and the European Investment Fund; 

–   bodies referred to in Articles 70 and 71 of the Financial Regulation; 

–   public law bodies; 

–   bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that 

they provide adequate financial guarantees; 

–   bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with 
the  implementation  of  a  public-private  partnership  and  that  provide  adequate 
financial guarantees; 

–    persons  entrusted  with  the  implementation  of  specific  actions  in  the  CFSP 

pursuant to Title V of the TEU, and identified in the relevant basic act. 

– 

If more than one management mode is indicated, please provide details in the ‘Comments’ section. 

Comments  

61 

Details of management modes and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on the 
BudgWeb site: 
https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/budgweb/EN/man/budgmanag/Pages/budgmanag.aspx  

EN 

55 

  EN 

                                                 
2. 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES  

2.1.  Monitoring and reporting rules  

Specify frequency and conditions. 

The present proposal identifies several monitoring and reporting rules. First, after the 
end of the transposition period, the Commission will need to produce a report on how 
Member States transposed the Directive. In addition, five years after the transposition 
of  the  Directive,  it  will  need  to  produce  another  report  on  the  efficiency  of  the 
revised Directive and to identify opportunities to strengthen it. These two reports are 
the basis of the monitoring and reporting rules lay down in the proposal.  

Moreover,  the  Commission  shall  issue  a  biennial  report  on  the  data  collected  and 
transmitted by Member States.  

2.2.  Management and control system(s)  

2.2.1. 

Justification of the management mode(s), the funding implementation mechanism(s), 
the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed 

Considering  that  the  proposal  affects  the  Commission’s  work,  and  more  precisely 
that  of  DG  JUST  and  DG  ENV,  the  EU  budget  will  be  implemented  via  direct 
management. 

Pursuant  to  the  principle  of  sound  financial  management,  the  budget  shall  be 
implemented in compliance with effective and efficient internal control.  

Regarding controls, DG JUST and DG ENV are subject to:  

- internal audit by the Internal Audit Service of the Commission; 

- external independent audits from the European Court of Auditors (ECA). 

- annual discharge granted by the European Parliament; 

- possible administrative investigations conducted by OLAF; 

- a further layer of control and accountability by the European Ombudsman. 

2.2.2. 

Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up 
to mitigate them 

No specific risks have been identified at this stage. 

2.2.3.  Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio of "control 
costs ÷ value of the related funds managed"), and assessment of the expected levels 
of risk of error (at payment & at closure)  

Following  the  Commission  central  services'  guidance,  the  cost  of  the  controls  at 
Commission level is assessed by the cost of the different control stages. The overall 
assessment for each management mode is obtained from the ratio between all those 
costs and the total amount paid in the year for the related management mode.  

The ratio of “control costs/payment of the related funds managed” is reported on by 
the  Commission.  The  2020  AAR  of  DG  JUST  reports  10,45%  for  this  ratio  in 
relation to Direct - Procurement. The 2020 AAR of DG ENV reports 1,55% for this 
ratio.  

EN 

56 

  EN 

2.3.  Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities  

Specify existing or envisaged prevention and protection measures, e.g. from the Anti-Fraud Strategy. 

The LFS concerns staff expenditure and procurement, and standard rules for this type 
of expenditures apply.  

EN 

57 

  EN 

3. 

3.1. 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

Heading(s)  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework  and  expenditure  budget 
line(s) affected  

  Existing budget lines  

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines. 

Budget line 

Heading of 
multiannual 
financial 
framework 

Number  

Type of  
expenditure 

Diff./Non-
diff.62 

Contribution  

from 
EFTA 
countries
63 

from 
candidate 
countries64 

from third 
countries 

within the 
meaning of 
Article 21(2)(b) of 
the Financial 
Regulation  

2 

7 

Cohesion, Resilience and Values 

European Public Administration  

Non-diff. 

Non-diff 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO  

  New budget lines requested  

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines. 

Budget line 

Type of 
expenditure 

Contribution  

Heading of 
multiannual 
financial 
framework 

Number  

[XX.YY.YY.YY] 

Diff./Non-
diff. 

from 
EFTA 
countries 

from 
candidate 
countries 

from third 
countries 

within the 
meaning of 
Article 21(2)(b) of 
the Financial 
Regulation  

YES/NO  YES/NO  YES/NO 

YES/NO 

62 
63 
64 

Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-diff. = Non-differentiated appropriations. 
EFTA: European Free Trade Association.  
Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidates from the Western Balkans. 

EN 

58 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2. 

Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations  

3.2.1. 

Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations  

–    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations  

–    The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below: 

Heading of multiannual financial  
framework  

2 

Cohesion, Resilience and Values  

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Year 
202565 

Year 
2026 

Year 
2027 

Year 
N+4 

Enter as many years as 
necessary to show the duration 
of the impact (see point 1.6) 

TOTAL 

DG Justice and Consumers 

 Operational appropriations  

Promoting judicial cooperation 

Budget line 

Commitments 

(1a) 

Payments 

Commitments 

Payments 

(2a) 

(1b) 

(2b) 

0,350 
000 
0,350 
000 

Appropriations  of  an  administrative  nature  financed  from  the 
envelope of specific programmes66  

Budget line 

TOTAL appropriations 
for DG Justice and Consumers 

Commitments 

(3) 

=1a+1b 
+3 

Payments 

=2a+2b 

0,350 
000 

0,350 
000 

0,350 000 

0,350 000 

0,350 000 

65 

66 

EN 

Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts. Please replace "N" by the expected first year of implementation (for instance: 2021). The same  for the 
following years. 
Technical and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research. 

59 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 TOTAL operational appropriations  

Commitments 

Payments 

  TOTAL  appropriations  of  an  administrative  nature 
financed from the envelope for specific programmes  

+3 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADING <….> 
of the multiannual financial framework 

Commitments 

=4+ 6 

Payments 

=5+ 6 

If more than one operational heading is affected by the proposal / initiative, repeat the section above: 

  TOTAL  operational  appropriations  (all 
operational headings) 

Commitments 

Payments 

 TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature financed 
from  the  envelope  for  specific  programmes  (all  operational 
headings) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADINGS 1 to 6 
of the multiannual financial framework 
(Reference amount) 

Commitments 

=4+ 6 

Payments 

=5+ 6 

EN 

60 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Heading of multiannual financial  
framework  

7 

European Public Administration  

This section should be filled in using the 'budget data of an administrative nature' to be firstly introduced in the Annex to the Legislative 
Financial Statement (Annex V to the internal rules), which is uploaded to DECIDE for interservice consultation purposes. 

Year 
2025 

Year 
2026 

Year 
2027 

Year 
N+3 

Enter as many years as 
necessary to show the duration 
of the impact (see point 1.6)  

TOTAL 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

DG Justice and Consumers 

 Human resources  

 Other administrative expenditure  

TOTAL DG Justice and Consumers 

Appropriations  

DG Environment 

 Human resources  

 Other administrative expenditure  

TOTAL DG Environment 

Appropriations  

0,105 
048 

0, 022 
109 

0, 022 
109 

0,105 
048 

0, 022 
109 

0, 022 
109 

0,105 
048 

0, 022 
109 

0, 022 
109 

0,105 
048 

0, 022 
109 

0, 022 
109 

TOTAL appropriations 
under HEADING 7 
of the multiannual financial framework  

(Total  commitments  = 
Total payments) 

0,210 
096 

0,044 
218 

0,044 
218 

0,149 266 

0,149 266 

0,149 266 

0,149 266 

0,298 532 

Year 
2025 

Year 
2026 

Year 
2027 

Year 
N+3 

Enter as many years as 
necessary to show the duration 

TOTAL 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

EN 

61 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADINGS 1 to 7 
of the multiannual financial framework  

Commitments 

Payments 

0,560 
096 

0,560 
096 

0,044 
218 

0,044 
218 

0,044 
218 

0,044 
218 

of the impact (see point 1.6) 

0,648 532 

0,648 532 

3.2.2.  Estimated output funded with operational appropriations  

Year 
2025 

Year 
2026 

Year 
2027 

Year 
N+3 

OUTPUTS 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Enter as many years as necessary to show the 
duration of the impact (see point 1.6) 

TOTAL 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost  N

o

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

Total 
No 

Total 
cost 

0,111 
297  

0,111 
297 

Indicate 
objectives and 
outputs  

 

Type67 

Avera
ge 
cost 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 568 
Improve informed decision-making 
on environmental crime through 
improved collection and 
dissemination of statistical data. 

an expert in 
statistical data 
collecton to 
define minimum 
standards and 
present report 
format to MS  

67 
68 

Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g.: number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.). 
As described in point 1.4.2. ‘Specific objective(s)…’  

EN 

62 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
maintenance of 
standards 

Biennial EU 
report on MS 
data  

Subtotal for specific objective No 1 

Monitoring the Directive  

Contractor to 
produce the 
study on the 
transposition of 
the directive by 
Member States  

Commission 
staff to review 
and manage the 
Conractor study  

Subtotal for Monitoring the 
Directive  

TOTALS 

0,016 
582 

0,027 
636 

0,155 
515 

0,350 

0,054 
581 

0,404 
581 

0,560 
096 

0,016 
582 

0,027 
636 

0,044 
218 

0,016 
582 

0,027 
636 

0,044 
218 

0,044 
218 

0,044 
218 

0,049 
746 

0,082 
908 

0,243 
951 

0,404 
581 

0,648 
532 

EN 

63 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.3. 

Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations  

–    The  proposal/initiative  does  not  require  the  use  of  appropriations  of  an 

administrative nature  

–    The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative 

nature, as explained below: 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Year 
2025 

Year 
2026 

Year 
2027 

Year 
N+3 

Enter as many years as necessary to show the 
duration of the impact (see point 1.6) 

TOTAL 

HEADING 7 
of the multiannual 
financial framework 

Human resources  

0,210 096 

0,044 218 

0,044 218 

0,210 096 

0,044 218 

0,044 218 

Other administrative 
expenditure  

Subtotal HEADING 7 
of the multiannual 
financial framework  

Outside HEADING 769 
of the multiannual 
financial framework  

Human resources  

Other expenditure  
of an administrative 
nature 

Subtotal  
outside HEADING 7 
of the multiannual 
financial framework  

0,298 532 

0,298 532 

TOTAL 

0,210 096 

0,044 218 

0,044 218 

0,298 532 

The  appropriations  required  for  human  resources  and  other  expenditure  of  an  administrative  nature  will  be  met  by 
appropriations from the DG that are already assigned to management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the 
DG,  together  if  necessary  with  any  additional  allocation  which  may  be  granted  to  the  managing  DG  under  the  annual 
allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints. 

69 

Technical  and/or  administrative  assistance  and  expenditure  in  support  of  the  implementation  of  EU programmes 
and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research. 

EN 

64 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.3.1.  Estimated requirements of human resources  

–    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources.  

–    The  proposal/initiative  requires  the  use  of  human  resources,  as  explained 

below: 

Estimate to be expressed in full time equivalent units 

Year 
2025 

Year 
2026 

Year 
2027 

Year 
N+3 

Enter as many years as 
necessary to show the duration 
of the impact (see point 1.6) 

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff) 

20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation 
Offices) 

2 

1 

1 

20 01 02 03 (Delegations) 

01 01 01 01 (Indirect research) 

 01 01 01 11 (Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) 

 External staff (in Full Time Equivalent unit: FTE)70 

20 02 01 (AC, END, INT from the ‘global envelope’) 

20 02 03 (AC, AL, END, INT and JPD in the delegations) 

XX 01 xx yy zz 71 

- at Headquarters 

- in Delegations  

01 01 01 02 (AC, END, INT - Indirect research) 

 01 01 01 12 (AC, END, INT - Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) 

TOTAL 

272 

1 

1 

XX is the policy area or budget title concerned. 

The human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to management of the 
action  and/or  have  been  redeployed  within  the  DG,  together  if  necessary  with  any  additional  allocation  which 
may  be  granted  to  the  managing  DG  under  the  annual  allocation  procedure  and  in  the  light  of  budgetary 
constraints. 

Description of tasks to be carried out: 

Officials and temporary staff 

Year 2025:  

Specific objective number five:  

  One-off  costs:  a  Commission  official  who  would  be  an  expert  in  statistical 
data collection, ideally crime statistics in order to define minimum standards 
and  to  draft  report  format  for  Member  States  allowing  them  to  report 
statistical  data  in  an  harmonized  way.  This  task  shall  be  carried  out  in  162 
days.  

  Recurring costs: a Commission official who would be an expert in statistical 
data collection, ideally crime statistics in order to maintain data and produce 
biennial  report  on  data  coming  from  Member  States.  Those  task  shall  be 
carried out in 64 days each year starting in 2025. 

70 

71 
72 

AC=  Contract  Staff;  AL  =  Local  Staff;  END=  Seconded  National  Expert;  INT  =  agency  staff; 
JPD= Junior Professionals in Delegations.  
Sub-ceiling for external staff covered by operational appropriations (former ‘BA’ lines). 
These figures of FTE apply not for the full year but only for 7 months per year. 

EN 

65 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Reporting on the transposition of the Directive  

  One-off  costs:  a  Commission  official  who  would  manage  and  review  the 
contractor’s  study,  plus  prepare  the  actual  evaluation  SWD  report  to  be 
adopted. This task shall be carried out in 79 days in 2025.  

Starting in 2025 and occuring each year:  

Specific objective number five:  

  Recurring costs: a Commission official who would be an expert in statistical 
data collection, ideally crime statistics in order to maintain data and produce 
biennial  report  on  data  coming  from  Member  States.  Those  task  shall  be 
carried out in 64 days each year starting in 2025  

External staff 

EN 

66 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
3.2.4.  Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework  

The proposal/initiative: 

–    The  proposal/initiative  is  compatible  the  current  multiannual  financial 

framework. 

–    requires use of the unallocated margin under the relevant heading of the MFF 

and/or use of the special instruments as defined in the MFF Regulation. 

Explain  what  is  required,  specifying  the  headings  and  budget  lines  concerned,  the  corresponding 
amounts, and the instruments proposed to be used. 

–    requires a revision of the MFF. 

Explain what is required, specifying the headings and budget lines concerned and the corresponding 
amounts. 

3.2.5.  Third-party contributions  

The proposal/initiative: 

–    does not provide for co-financing by third parties 

–    provides for the co-financing by third parties estimated below: 

Appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Year 
N73 

Year 
N+1 

Year 
N+2 

Year 
N+3 

Enter as many years as necessary 
to show the duration of the 
impact (see point 1.6) 

Total 

Specify  the  co-financing 
body  

TOTAL appropriations 
co-financed  

73 

Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts. Please replace "N" by the 
expected first year of implementation (for instance: 2021). The same for the following years. 

EN 

67 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.3. 

Estimated impact on revenue  

–    The proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue. 

–    The proposal/initiative has the following financial impact: 

–   

–   

on own resources  

on other revenue 

– 

please indicate, if the revenue is assigned to expenditure lines  

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Appropriations 
available for 
the current 
financial year 

Budget revenue line: 

Article …………. 

Impact of the proposal/initiative74 

Year 
N 

Year 
N+1 

Year 
N+2 

Year 
N+3 

Enter as many years as necessary to show 
the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) 

For assigned revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected. 

Other  remarks  (e.g.  method/formula  used  for  calculating  the  impact  on  revenue  or  any  other 
information).  

74 

As regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net 
amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 20 % for collection costs. 

EN 

68 

  EN