Important issues in select European Union countries’ criminal environmental law in compliance with Directive 200899EC

Analysis of the criminal code provisions in these countries highlights both similarities and differences in their approach to environmental infringements. The first group of analyzed crimes against natural environment values protects plant and animal species and the natural value of protected areas. However, the approach to these crimes in Poland is too general because it covers only the destruction of habitats and species by human activities, including those in protected areas. In addition, except for the illegal buildings legislated in the PPC, there are no specific regulations that match those in the GPC. For example, there is no mention in the PPC of installations emitting noise or posing a threat to flooding or gravel extraction. Moreover, although the GPC legislates stronger protection against illegal activities in Natura 2000 areas, the CPC correctly imposes the directive of punishing illegal possession and trade of protected species, and this expands the legal protection to animals and plants. Their code protects animals against deleterious effects of pharmaceuticals and other substances on livestock efficiency and it also provides plant protection against contagious disease and parasite spread. Thus, a different scope and extended protection are regulated in the CPC Penal Code, and this is reinforced in its other provisions. The crimes of serious pollution and emitting ionising radiation are treated with a similar approach to crimes causing a threat to human health and life and damage to environmental resources. When the crime in Germany causes a risk of damage to a large number of people's health, it is sanctioned by a higher penalty, but the CPC premise goes much further. In addition to the crime being judged on the amount of damage caused, the CPC regulates the costs for removing or alleviating the damage, but it does not specify actual amounts.

The analyzed countries all thoroughly implemented the crime of illegal waste management and shipment in their penal codes. However, while they mention the stages of waste management from collection and shipment to disposal, both Poland and Germany only classify infringements as crimes when there is waste endangerment to human health and life, deterioration in water, soil or air quality or flora and fauna destruction. In addition, although the GPC did extend the scope in these areas by specifying criminality for waste carcinogens and radioactivity, every illegal activity in waste management is considered a crime in CPC legislation. Finally, however, there is a consensus in all three analyzed countries that all illegal activities related to nuclear materials and radioactive substances that threaten people and environmental resources are criminal offenses. However, only the GPC law extends the range of these activities to illegal nuclear fuel delivery and nuclear explosion, and it directly legislates that dangerous operation of a plant is a crime. This activity mainly concerns nuclear facilities, but it is supplemented by GPC Section 328 for necessary action on sewage treatment installations and waste utilization.

The CPC invokes a similar response to crimes committed by ozone-depleting substances, and it is the only one of the three countries which penalizes these by imposing strict control on environmental damage resulting from ozone depleting substances. While the CPC regulates the intended offenses established in the 2008/99/EC directive more stringently than the Polish and German criminal codes, these countries punish the infringements in separate Acts. In addition, both the CPC and GPC sanction damage to individual environmental resources, but they employ different terminology. The Czech criminal code specifically controls environmental harm to water resources and forests with precise sanctions dependent on the extent of environmental damage and the GPC legislates pollution of water, soil and air dependent on its impact on water, water plants and reservoirs.

Punishment for illegal acts against the environment is also similar in the analyzed penal codes. For example, while the general maximum penalty for the offenses described in the above-mentioned countries is imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, there are noticeable differences in other penalties. While unintentional acts in Poland are sanctioned by up to two years imprisonment, the Czech Republic adds legislation for environmental damage resulting from gross negligence with imprisonment for up to two years and the German Penal Code legislates for especially serious environmental offences by enforcing a period of six months to ten years imprisonment.

In conclusion, these three countries have been relatively successful in comprehensively implementing the Criminal Directive provisions. This has extended the scope of their environmental protection against acts causing the greatest degree of harm to their resources, and by extension, this has reduced the risk to human life and health. Moreover, these countries have achieved this by adapting their specific legislative and political situations. Finally, the greatest problem remaining for Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany is their vague premises covering environmental crimes. Therefore, the following postulates de lege ferenda can be formulated. There is an urgent need for the following:

— clarify the premises for offenses against the environment and provide a definition of significant damage to the environment and destruction of flora and fauna that both the judicial system and the offender can work with;

— financially estimate significant damage to the environment and specify the costs that can be recovered in repairing it;

— define critical emission standards for water, air and soil resources, so that their excess results in an environmental crime;

— extend the scope of contamination by assessing vibrations and electromagnetic radiation;

— specify activities in protected areas, and especially in Natura 2000 sites, that threaten the objects of their protection. This will enhance the protection of objects, species and habitats;

— include animal protection and protection against ozone-depleting substances;

— crimes against the environment should be codified in one legal act -- the penal code. Additional environmental legal acts should then only regulate administrative sanctions.

Finally, the combination of these legal solutions and the extension of their scope will enhance comprehensive protection of environmental resources and effective implementation of criminal provisions.

References

1. Cardwell, Paul J., Duncan French, Matthew Hall. 2011. “Tackling environmental crime in the European Union: the case of the missing victim?” Environmental Law and Management 23(3): 113-121. Cemalovic, Uros. 2016. “Harmonisation of Serbian national legal system with European Union acquis -- the case of environment”. Economics of Agriculture 3: 891-904.

2. Dutu, Mircea. 2016. “European Union law. Environmental crime in the EU: is there a need for further harmonisation or for new enforcement tools?” Law Review 1 (1): 81-96.

3. Farmer, Andrew, Michael Faure, Grazia M. Fagliasindi. 2017. Environmental Crime in Europe. Oxford, Hart Publ.

4. Faure, Michael, Franziska Weber. 2017. “The Diversity of the EU Approach to Law Enforcement -- Towards a Coherent Model Inspired by a Law and Economics Approach”. German Law Journal 18 (4): 823-880. Faure, Michael. 2017. “The Development of Environmental Criminal Law in the EU and its Member States”. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 26 (2): 139-146. https://doi. org/10.1111/reel.12204.

5. Gouritin, Armelle, Paul de Hert. 2009. “Environmental Crimes: An Overview”. Environmental Law Network International 1: 22-27.

6. Heger, Marin, Brigitte Kelker, Edward Schramm, eds, 2014. Festschrift fьr Kristian Kьhl. Mьnchen, Verlag C. H. Beck.

7. Jancarova, Irena. 2011. “Several remarks to criminal liability of legal persons to environmental protection”. Czech and European Environmental Law, eds Milan Damohorsky, Vojtech Stejskal, 59-68. Praha, Nakladatelstvi Eva Rozkotova Publ.

8. Keene, Eli. 2015. “Compliance with the EU Environmental Crime Directive in the Countries of Southeast Europe and Moldova, Report, Themis Network, Austrian Development Cooperation”. Regional Environmental Centre. Accessed December 4, 2019. http://documents.rec.org/publications/Themis_ Environmental_Crimes_Directive_Implementation_Report_July2015.pdf.

9. Kloepfer, Michael, Hans P. Vierhaus. 2002. Umweltstrafrecht. 2^nd ed. Mьnchen, Verlag CH Beck. Luttenberger, Axel, Lidija R. Luttenberger. 2017. “Challenges in regulating environmental crimes”. 7^th International Maritime Science Conference, April 20^th-21^st. Solin, Croatia.

10. Meinberg, Volker. 1998. “Empirical findings on the enforcement of environmental criminal law”. Zeitschrift fьr die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 100: 112-157.

11. Meyer, Kirsten. 2012. “Fьhrt § 330d Abs. 2 StGB zur endgьltigen Europarechtsakzessorietдt des deutschen Umweltstrafrechts?” Wistra 1: 371-376.

12. Mizerova, Marie. 2011. “Criminal liability of legal persons in relations to environmental protection”. Czech and European Environmental Law, eds Milan Damohorsky, Vojtech Stejskal, 69-77. Praha, Nakladatelstvi Eva Rozkotova Publ.

13. Pereira, Ricardo. 2017. “Towards Effective Implementation of the EU Environmental Crime Directive? The Case of Illegal Waste Management and Trafficking Offences”. Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law 26 (2): 147-162.

14. Radecki, Wojciech, ed. 2010b. Instytucje prawa ochrony srodowiska. Geneza -- rozwoj -- perspektywy. Warszawa, Difin Publ.

15. Radecki, Wojciech. 2009. “ Nowy czeski kodeks karny”. Prokuratura i Prawo 7/8: 185-211.

16. Radecki, Wojciech. 2010a. “Prawo karne srodowiska. Czзsc I. Ewolucja polskiego prawa karnego srodowiskat”. Journal of Ecology and Health 14 (5): 215-220.

17. Radecki, Wojciech. 2011. “Wdrozenie dyrektywy unijnej o ochronie srodowiska”. Biuletyn Parkow Krajobrazowych Wielkopolski 17 (19): 5-19.

18. Raniszewski, Szymon. 2012. “Dyrektywa Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie ochrony srodowiska poprzez prawo karne oraz jej implementacja do polskiego porz^dku prawnego”. Przeglqd Prawa Ochrony Srodowiska 2: 82-101.

19. Sina, Stephan. 2014. “EFFACE, Fighting Environmental Crime in Germany: A Country Report, Work package 2 on `Instruments, actors, and institutions'”. Accessed February 5, 2020. https://efface.eu/sites/ default/files/EFFACE_Fighting %20Environmental%20Crime %20in %20Germany_0.pdf.

20. Sina, Stephan. 2017. “Environmental Criminal Law in Germany”. Environmental Crime in Europe, Modern Studies in European Law, eds Andrew Farmer, Michael Faure, Grazia M. Vagliasindi, 95-118. Oxford and Portland, Oregon, Hart Publ.

21. Solodov, Denis, Elzbieta Zзbek. 2020. “Environmental Criminal Enforcement in Poland and Russia: Meeting Current Challenges”. Utrecht Law Review 16 (2): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.532.

22. Stejskal, Vojtech. 2010. “New criminal regulation of environmental protection in the Czech Republic”. Czech Environmental Law 4: 7-18.

23. Szwejkowska, Malgorzata, Elzbieta Zзbek. 2013. “Environmental crimes listed in the Polish Penal Code since 1997”. International and Comparative Law Review 13 (2): 109-118.

24. Weber, Ulrich. 2014. “Das deutsche Umweltstrafrecht nach dem 45. StrRG”. Festschrift fьr Kristian Kьhl, eds Marin Heger, Brigitte Kelker, Edward Schramm, 747-750. Mьnchen, Verlag C. H. Beck.

25. Zawlocki, Robert. 2014. “Karnoprawna ochrona srodowiska naturalnego”. Przeglqd Prawa Karnego 1: 127146.

26. Zзbek, Elzbieta, Natalia Kulbacka-Burakiewicz. 2017. “Prawnokarna ochrona wod w swietle prawa polskiego i czeskiego”. Studia Prawnoustrojowe 38: 70-85.

27. Zзbek, Elzbieta. 2017. Instrumenty administracyjno-prawne i ekonomiczne w ochronie srodowiska. Olsztyn, Kortowski Przeglqd Prawniczy Monografie, Wydzial Prawa i Administracji UWM Publ.

Размещено на Allbest.ru