Analyse
14 juillet 2021

Le renforcement de la justice environnementale avec l’introduction de la CJIP environnementale française (En anglais)

Bastille Day 2021 - Legislative, Regulatory & Policy updates

 

In recent years, environmental considerations have been at the heart of current concerns and awareness has been raised, illustrated by legislative development relating to the environment such as the French Law dated 24 December 2020 on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, environmental justice, and specialized criminal justice[i].

This law, has put in place a new Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“CJIP”)[ii], adjusted to environmental issues which was added into the Code of Criminal Procedure for entities charged with several offences under the Environmental Code[iii].

 

I. The insufficiency of the French repressive regime for environmental offences

The creation of an Environmental CJIP comes at a time when the existing repression of environmental offences was insufficient[iv] notably due to the complexity of environmental criminal law requiring a scientific expertise[v].

Thus, to bypass this technicality and to avoid the complex task of characterizing the offence[vi], alternatives measures are often the most fitted response[vii].

Notably, criminal transaction is available for offences punishable by less than two years’ imprisonment and includes among its obligation a fine of one third of that normally incurred[viii]. Nevertheless, this criminal transaction has been described as insufficient in the sense that it is not applicable to environmental offences of a certain gravity[ix] and is unsuited to environmental issues[x].

The new Environmental CJIP was thus created to fill these gaps and strengthen the repression of serious environmental offences[xi].

II. The creation of Environmental CJIP as a new tool for the repression and protection of environmental damages

Possibilities of repression of environmental offences were made stronger with the introduction of the Environmental CJIP. Indeed, this tool can be used against entities who are accused of one or more offences and related offences mentioned in the Environmental Code. It for a fine up to 30% of the average annual turnover calculated on the basis of the last three known annual turnovers on the date of the finding of these breaches[xii].

Reparation and protection of the environment are also reinforced with the new CJIP which provides that the entity may be required to implement an environmental compliance program over a period of three years and under the supervision of the relevant departments of the Minister of the Environment. The entity may also be required, within a maximum of three years, to repair the ecological damage resulting from the offences committed[xiii]. The environmental CJIP thus intends a faster and more effective remedy for environmental damage[xiv].

With regards to this procedure, the provisions refer to the modalities of the CJIP of the Sapin II Law. The agreement does not have to be made before the public prosecution is initiated, must be validated by the president of the judicial court, and be published[xv].

The Environmental CJIP therefore demonstrates the growing willingness of authorities to sanction environmental law violations committed by companies, forcing entities subject to these risks to strengthen their compliance programs in this area[xvi]. However, some questions regarding the application of this Convention may arise.

III. The remaining issues related to the Environmental CJIP

While the Environmental CJIP may be an advantage for companies in that it avoids legal proceedings costs and the legal uncertainty[xvii], it is questionable whether this mechanism will be considered by companies given the current low level of fines in the environmental area[xviii]. The current reforms may nevertheless change the situation in that they provide for an increase of fines up to several million euros[xix].

In addition, the large publicity reserved for an environmental CJIP (Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Environment, Municipalities)[xx] may create a fear of the economic operators, due to the greater visibility and potential increase in claims[xxi].

Finally, there are still questions regarding the scope of compliance programs. Indeed, unlike the Sapin II Law and the traditional CJIP, the December 2020 law and the accompanying reports provide, to this date, relatively few details on the nature of the compliance program and the way its implementation is assessed[xxii].

Contenu similaire

Publication
BDN 2022
14 juillet 2022
Bastille Day Newsletter 2022
En ce 14 juillet, l’équipe Navacelle vous propose, comme chaque année, une sélection d'événements marquants survenus en France au cours des 12 derniers mois dans l...
Revue de presse
Revue de presse - Semaine du 20 juin 2022
24 juin 2022
Revue de presse – Semaine du 20 juin 2022
Cette semaine vous découvrirez le nouvel article du code pénal qui harmonise la répression de la prise illégale d’intérêt, une précision majeure sur la détermin...
Actualité
Devoir de vigilance
21 juin 2022
Le devoir de vigilance français à l’aune de son européanisation
Le 23 février dernier, la Commission européenne a dévoilé sa proposition de directive sur le devoir de vigilance qui vise à favoriser un comportement durable et resp...
Revue de presse
Revue de presse - Semaine du 21 mars 2022
25 mars 2022
Revue de presse – Semaine du 21 mars 2022
Dans cette revue de presse, vous retrouverez notamment des articles sur la deuxième CJIP environnementale conclue cette semaine par le Groupe GAEC ; des précisions de l...
Analyse
Quel sera l'impact de la transposition en droit français de la directive européenne sur la protection des lanceurs d'alerte ? (En anglais)
14 juillet 2021
Quel sera l’impact de la transposition en droit français de la directive européenne sur la protection des lanceu...
Bastille Day Newsletter 2021 - Legislative, Regulatory & Policy updates
Analyse
14 juillet 2021
L’AFA a mis à jour ses recommandations concernant les programmes anti-corruption (En anglais)
Bastille Day Newsletter 2021 - Legislative, Regulatory & Policy updates
Publication
14 avril 2021
Les risques de la reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité en France
Conseils clés pour une procédure de comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité en France pour l’Anti-Corruption Report.
Analyse
23 mars 2021
European Compliance and Ethics Community – La Directive sur la protection des lanceurs d’alerte : Conseils pour ...
Stéphane de Navacelle, intervient sur la protection des lanceurs d’alerte, sa transposition en droit français et l’impact de la Directive dédiée sur les entrepris...
Publication
27 janvier 2021
Les fondamentaux de l’enquête interne en matière pénale
Tribune de Julie Zorrilla, Princessa Fouda et Sara Deyhim pour le magazine Compliances sur les fondamentaux de l’enquête interne en matière pénale.
Analyse
14 décembre 2020
Eclaircissements sur les dispositions issues de la loi sur le devoir de vigilance
Les premières leçons du récent arrêt de la Cour d’appel de Versailles du 9 décembre 2020 qui vient apporter des précisions bienvenues sur la loi sur le devoir de ...
Analyse
8 juillet 2020
Droit pénal en France face au coronavirus – Navacelle pour l’ABA (en anglais)
Stéphane de Navacelle, Clémentine Duverne et Princessa Fouda co-auteurs d’un article sur les développements récents du droit pénal en France en pleine pandémie de...
Publication
6 avril 2020
Impacts du Covid-19 en droit administratif, droits de l’homme, droit du travail, droit des contrats et droit pénal
Les stagiaires et élèves avocats (EFB École de Formation du Barreau) de NAVACELLE Clément Allais, Amelle Djedi, Soukaina El-Mekkaoui, Christelle Meda et Ekaterina Ole...