Analyse
14 juillet 2020

Une CJIP environnementale vers une justice négociée plus verte (En anglais)

Bastille Day Newsletter 2020 - Legislative, Regulatory & Policy Updates

 

At a time where ecological and environmental considerations are at the heart of current concerns, the question arose around the use of negotiated justice to punish environmental offences.

On 3 March 2020, the French Senate passed a Bill aiming at strengthening criminal law’s response to environmental harm [1]. As part of this Bill, an “environmental CJIP” is introduced, based on the model implemented by the Sapin II law [2] for probity offenses.

A few days after this Bill, on March 11, 2020, a subsidiary of Vinci accused of dumping concrete residues into the Seine river, was sanctioned by the Nanterre Criminal Court within a guilty plea procedure (“CRPC”). Although the company was sentenced to a 90,000 euros fine and to comply with the immediate remediation of the polluted site, the environmental NGOs have pinpointed the CRPC as an inadequate measure for environmental offences giving companies a de facto “right to pollute [3] ”.

While the opening up of negotiated justice to environmental offences illustrates a willingness to fight against them, the sanctions will need to be adapted to the reality of the damages.

 

I. The shortcomings of the repression of environmental offences under French law

When it comes to environmental matters, the French justice system tends to be considered incomplete on multiple grounds. The processing times are long, the reparation of damage is often incommensurate to the harm caused, and the measures to ensure that violations will not occur again are insufficient [4].

Few environmental offences are sanctioned in court, and sanctions do not seem adapted to the damage caused. Indeed, environmental litigation represents only 1% of criminal convictions and 0.5% of civil convictions. The former French Minister of Justice, Nicole Belloubet explained however that “these figures do not, […], reflect the reality of the damage that is done daily to the environment and biodiversity [5] ”. For instance in 2018, out of 1,993 prosecuted individuals on charges pertaining to environmental damage, only 27 were sentenced to prison and 954 were fined. With respect to legal entities, 60 out of 139 convicted were fined [6]. As a remedy, the Bill aims at refurbishing the environmental justice system by providing a better judicial response to environmental harm. The environmental CJIP may contribute to the fight against harm to environment, by encouraging offending companies to cooperate rather than sanctioning perpetrators.

 

II. The introduction of a negotiated environmental justice in which sanctions remain to be adapted

The CJIP offers a new way of tackling high-stake financial crimes committed by legal entities.

According to former French Minister of Justice, the goal of the environmental CJIP is to “make companies more responsible and mobilize them on ecological issues instead of focusing on seeking the criminal responsibility of managers [7]”. The conclusion of an environmental CJIP will lead to the payment by companies of a fine proportionate to the benefit derived through the misconduct, up to a limit of 30% of the entity’s average annual turnover over the previous three years [8]. A CJIP will also include the implementation of an environmental compliance program, under the supervision of the Ministry of the Environment, and the reparation of environmental damages within a three-year delay [9]. The content of the compliance programs is yet to be determined – it could for instance, be based on internal procedures mirroring those in place for corruption matters such as a reporting procedure, the implementation of a code of conduct and risk mapping [10].

As a tool of the new negotiated justice movement, the CJIP is recognized for its growing success in France since it came into force and appears fit to process the complexity of environmental matters and legislation. The intended measures regarding the amount of the fine may however not be adapted to all environmental damage. Indeed, environmental damage does not necessarily imply monetary exchanges, and it may for instance be difficult to evaluate a benefit that derives through accidental pollution or lack of diligence. Moreover, one of the main challenges following environmental damage is to restore the initial state of land and avoid aggravation or repetition of the damage.

Some NGOs thereby fear that such settlements could restrict the impact of sanctions and neglect the crucial educational aspect pertaining to environmental issues [11].

Contenu similaire

Analyse
19 mai 2025
CJIP Paprec : retour sur la répression pénale en cas de violation des règles d’attribution...
Le 10 février 2025, Paprec a signé une Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (CJIP) afin de mettre fin aux poursuites à...
Événement
4 mars 2025
Paris Arbitration Week 2025 – Red flags et arbitrage : tendances et outils pour lutter contre la corruption
Navacelle organise aux côtés de Forensic Risk Alliance une conférence sur le thème de la conformité et l'arbitrage le 8...
Revue de presse
13 juin 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 9 juin 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur la mise en examen de Pascaline Bongo dans une affaire de corruption...
Actualité
13 juin 2025
Navacelle accueille Maxime Desplats en qualité d’associé
Navacelle est heureux d’annoncer l'arrivée et l’association de Maxime Desplats.
Actualité
12 juin 2025
Enquêtes internes : recommandation de 7 garde-fous juridiques pour plus d’efficacité
Le journal Les Echos publie un entretien croisé de Stéphane de Navacelle, Dominique Perben (Simon Associés) et Raphaël Gauvain (Stephenson...
Revue de presse
6 juin 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 2 juin 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur la coordination au niveau français des sanctions économiques décidées par l’Union européenne,...
Press review
6 juin 2025
Press review – Week of 2 June 2025
This week’s press review covers the coordination at the French national level of the economic sanctions decided by the European...
5 min
Revue de presse
30 mai 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 26 mai 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur la condamnation de la banque Edmond de Rothschild pour des faits de...
Événement
26 mai 2025
[Webinaire] Coopération renforcée contre la corruption : perspectives croisées Royaume-Uni, Suisse et France (en anglais)...
Les co-présidents du comité international de lutte contre la corruption de la section du droit international de l'American Bar Association...
Revue de presse
23 mai 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 19 mai 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur le positionnement d’Emmanuel Macron en faveur de la suppression de la Directive...
Revue de presse
16 mai 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 12 mai 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur la prise de position du chancelier allemand Friedrich Merz, qui appelle à...
Revue de presse
9 mai 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 5 mai 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur la démission de François Commeinhes de son poste de maire de Sète...
Revue de presse
2 mai 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 28 avril 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur les réquisitions prises à l’encontre de François Fillon dans l’affaire des emplois...