header-logo header-logo

Brussels to set environmental crime agenda

15 February 2007
Issue: 7260 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Environment
printer mail-detail

News

A range of environmental crimes could be introduced across the EU, with sentencing levels set by Brussels.

A proposed European Commission Directive would set fines and jail terms for nine offences, and assign minimum levels of punishment for the most serious of these.

The Commission wants to ensure criminal sanctions are consistent across the EU so that those who commit environmental crimes cannot take advantage of more lenient areas. For example, the Dutch government is currently conducting a criminal investigation into the alleged dumping of chemical waste in the Ivory Coast by a Dutch-owned company, in which 10 people died and hundreds fell ill, but in some EU countries this would not be possible.

Franco Frattini, the Commission’s vice president responsible for justice, freedom and security, says: “The proposed directive is crucial to avoid criminals profiting from the existing discrepancies in member states’ criminal law systems which damage the European environment. We cannot allow safe-havens of environmental crime inside the EU.”

The government says that although legislation is already in place in the UK to ensure that citizens and companies are held responsible for such crimes—ranging from those involving death or injury to the illegal disposal of waste—there is clearly a need to ensure that all member states effectively enforce environmental offences.

A Home Office spokeswoman adds: “It should not be the case that serious polluters can move around the EU in order to avoid facing penalties. This proposal from the European Commission is the starting point for future negotiations and UK ministers will have a full opportunity to determine how environmental offences are penalised across the EU. We will seek to ensure the legislation is both necessary and proportionate and clearly supported by the evidence.”

Under the proposed directive, member states would be required to ensure that a range of activities, such as the illegal shipment of waste and unlawful trade in endangered species or in ozone-depleting substances, already prohibited by EU or national legislation are considered criminal offences, when committed intentionally or with serious negligence.

Member states would have to impose custodial sentences of at least five years or financial penalties on offending companies of at least €750,000 for particularly serious crimes, such as those that have resulted in death or serious injury.

Issue: 7260 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Environment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Paul Madden

Gilson Gray—Paul Madden

Partner appointed to headinternational insolvency and dispute resolution for England

Brachers—Gill Turner Tucker

Brachers—Gill Turner Tucker

Kent firm expands regional footprint through strategic acquisition

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—William Charles

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—William Charles

Financial disputes and investigations specialist joins as partner in London

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll