The Future of Environmental Liability: Criminal Law Aspects

Ten years after its adoption, the Paris Agreement remains a landmark in the history of the fight against climate change. Signed on December 12, 2015, at the end of COP21, in an atmosphere of gravity and hope, it embodies the moment when the international community united to acknowledge that rising temperatures posed an existential threat to human societies, planetary stability, and fundamental rights. In a capital still shaken by the attacks of November 13, the signing of the agreement sparked rare political emotion, greeted with a standing ovation. This new kind of document committed the 196 parties to keeping global warming “well below 2°C,” with an aim to continue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C, a threshold demanded by the most vulnerable countries and supported by science as the dividing line between disruption and a tipping point.

The Agreement also reflects a global scientific consensus based on the work of the IPCC, emphasizing the urgent need to reduce emissions. The acknowledgment of the link between human activities and climate change is now universally accepted at the diplomatic level, marking a shift from the divisions seen in earlier negotiations, especially in Copenhagen in 2009.

But beyond this climate sequence, the past decade has seen the rise of global environmental awareness, including issues like biodiversity loss, pollution, resource depletion, and damage to the oceans. The 2019 IPBES report, ¹ called the “IPCC of biodiversity,” estimates that one million plant and animal species are now at risk of extinction. ² In 2022, the United Nations Environment Programme and Interpol estimated that illegal profits from environmental crime worldwide reached nearly €280 billion annually, surpassing those from drug-related crimes. They also reported a 5-7% annual increase in environmental crimes globally. These crimes include industrial pollution, species trafficking, illegal deforestation, illegal fishing, and toxic waste. ³

Furthermore, environmental damage also poses a security risk. While the January 2025 report from the European Copernicus observatory highlights that 2024 is likely to be the hottest year on record, several studies conducted in various countries, including the United States, Spain, and South Korea, show that rising temperatures encourage acts of violence and crime. According to a study by researchers from Princeton and Berkeley, a 1°C increase in temperatures above the seasonal norm is enough to raise the number of violent crimes, such as domestic violence, murder, and rape, by 4%. ⁴

Faced with this situation, civil society is pursuing legal action. Legal cases are increasing, both before administrative and judicial courts, often initiated by environmental groups, citizen organizations, and even local governments.

In this context, has environmental criminal justice followed this fundamental shift? Has it also experienced a decade of consolidation and expansion?

France is now preparing to transpose European Directive 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, adopted on April 11, 2024. ⁵ This directive significantly expands the scope of environmental offenses (from 9 to 20), strengthens the liability of legal entities, imposes penalties proportional to turnover, and, for the first time in a European document, mentions behaviors “comparable to ecocide.” This transposition could serve as an opportunity for an ambitious overhaul of environmental criminal law, which is currently burdened by regulatory inflation.

This change is all the more necessary given that, at the same time, several public reports—including those from the General Inspectorate of Justice and the General Council for the Environment and Sustainable Development in 2019, ⁶ and the report published under the auspices of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation in 2023 ⁷ —have highlighted the shortcomings of criminal justice: limited investigative resources, jurisdictional fragmentation, and a lack of environmental awareness among judicial actors.

The upcoming decade could therefore bring a change in perspective. Criminal law, which has long hesitated to treat environmental damage as more than collateral harm, is now being asked to serve as a means of deterrence, justice, and redress. But it remains to be seen whether it can fulfill this ambition.

I – A decade of shaping French environmental criminal law: between institutional affirmation and the quest for effectiveness

Over the past decade, France has progressively shifted its approach to environmental criminal law. Long relegated to a residual function of administrative or economic law, environmental criminal law has become an independent, specialized field. It has developed to address the increasing severity of environmental damage, the complexity of violations, and the need for clear criminal responses. This change has led to reforms in criminal offenses, the development of specialized judicial actors, and the adaptation of procedural tools to meet modern challenges.

1 – Normative developments: moving toward stricter penalties for environmental offenses

The Climate and Resilience Act of August 22, 2021 ⁸ —the result of the work of the Citizens’ Climate Convention in 2020 ⁹ —was a significant step in reforming environmental criminal law. Notably, this law established the offense of ecocide, outlined in Article L. 231-3 of the Environmental Code, defined as intentional pollution or a manifestly deliberate breach of a specific obligation that results in serious, long-lasting, or widespread impacts on health, flora, fauna, or the quality of air, soil, or water. Although ambitious in its language, this offense, which applies nationally, differs considerably from the international ecocide project discussed in international forums in that its scope is more limited.

Additionally, the same law strengthened the penalty system by raising fines to substantial levels (up to €4.5 million).

This strengthening of regulations was accompanied by a reform of the judicial system, aimed at offering a more specialized and consistent criminal response to the technical and legal complexity of environmental offenses.

2 — Specialization in environmental justice: an institutional response to complexity

This specialization in the criminal justice response took shape in 2021 with the creation of regional environmental centers (PREs). Established by Article 15 of Law No. 2020-1672 of December 24, 2020 ¹⁰ and organized by Decree No. 2021-286 of March 16, 2021, ¹¹ these centers—now located in thirty-seven courts—have broadened their jurisdiction to cover the entire scope of their court of appeal for complex environmental offenses, as well as civil actions seeking compensation for ecological damage. With appointed magistrates, specialized assistants, and improved cooperation with the French Office for Biodiversity, regional directorates for environment, planning, and housing, and decentralized services, the PREs bring together technical expertise and facilitate faster case resolution. However, the 2023 report by the General Inspectorate of Justice highlights inconsistent practices, a shortage of personnel, and the lack of unified activity indicators. It recommends dedicated funding, mandatory staff training, and the creation of a national support network to turn the PREs into genuine “territorial leaders in environmental justice.” ¹²

Additionally, there are the Operational Committees for Combating Environmental Crime (COLDEN), established by decree in September 2023, chaired by public prosecutors, which coordinate the relevant judicial, administrative, and technical services at the local level.

On the investigative side, the creation in 2023 of the Command for the Environment and Health (CESAN) within the national gendarmerie will enable investigations to be coordinated, threats to be analyzed, data to be centralized, and international cooperation to be promoted. It will draw on more than 4,000 trained gendarmes responsible for environmental and health security issues throughout France, both in mainland France and overseas, and will exercise functional authority over the Central Office for the Fight against Environmental and Public Health Offenses (OCLAESP). This interministerial judicial police unit, established in 2004, is responsible in particular for complex investigations into trafficking related to the environment, public health, and animal abuse.

Against this backdrop of reassessing the effectiveness of environmental criminal law, the criminal policy circular of October 11, 2023, marked a notable shift. It designates environmental offenses as a national priority, directing prosecutors to appoint specialized advisors, enhance statistical monitoring of environmental offenses, and utilize all available tools, including alternatives to prosecution. But the circular also emphasizes another essential mechanism: inter-institutional cooperation. It advocates for stronger connections between judicial authorities and administrative agencies through local or regional agreements. Meanwhile, the circular from May 11, 2021, encouraged prosecutors to systematically pursue criminal liability for legal entities. These guidelines show a growing recognition that criminal justice cannot be fully effective without close coordination with environmental enforcement and police agencies. Nor can it succeed without suitable legal tools, which are gradually being updated.

3 – Renewed legal instruments to enhance effectiveness and responsiveness

In response to recurring criticism of the slow and inefficient environmental justice process, new tools have been introduced to improve the responsiveness of criminal proceedings.

The 2016 Biodiversity Act and the 2019 Act strengthening environmental policing expanded access to special investigation techniques (wiretapping, geolocation, infiltration) for environmental offenses, thereby acknowledging their connection to organized crime.

The Environmental Public Interest Judicial Agreement (CJIP), ¹³ introduced by the law of December 24, 2020, represents another significant innovation. Inspired by the anti-corruption CJIP, it enables prosecutors to reach an agreement with a company accused of an environmental offense, in exchange for a fine (up to 30% of the company’s turnover), a requirement to rectify ecological damage, and a compliance audit. This process avoids criminal proceedings and enables a swift and proportionate response, particularly in complex cases with substantial economic implications. Implemented by numerous local public prosecutors’ offices, particularly in water pollution cases, it has rapidly expanded to surpass the financial CJIP. ¹⁴

Finally, environmental summary proceedings enable the judge for liberties (juge des libertés) or investigating judge (juge d’instruction) to order urgent protective measures (such as compliance, suspension of activity, or restoration) in cases of an imminent risk to the environment. This procedure, as confirmed by the Court of Cassation in a ruling dated January 28, 2020, is not subject to the characterization of a criminal offense, which reinforces its preventive usefulness. ¹⁵

This overhaul of French criminal law occurred within an international and European context that posed both particular and crucial challenges.

II – A European dynamic: between renewed ambitions and systemic limitations

The past decade has seen the development of a stronger environmental legal framework at both European and international levels. The increase in regulatory initiatives and the growing recognition of environmental justice by regional courts demonstrate real institutional momentum. However, these advancements still face significant structural and political challenges, especially regarding the effectiveness of environmental criminal law in a fragmented and politically diverse environment.

1 – A European regulatory revival center on Directive 2024/1203

The key text for this period is the very recent Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of April 11, 2024, on environmental protection through criminal law. In May 2021, the European Parliament urged the European Commission and the Council of the European Union to prioritize combating environmental crime. ¹⁶

This new directive replaces Directive 2008/99/EC and marks a step change: it broadens the list of environmental offenses from 9 to 20, increases the liability of legal entities, introduces substantially higher fines (up to 5% of global annual turnover), and mandates Member States to establish specialized investigation mechanisms. The text also calls for coordination with administrative and environmental authorities to ensure the effectiveness of criminal prosecutions.

Furthermore, at the urging of the European Parliament, which was itself challenged by non-governmental organizations such as the Stop Ecocide Foundation, the directive formalizes, for the first time in an EU document, the idea of conduct comparable to ecocide, without explicitly using the term, but by referencing offenses that cause widespread, long-lasting, and irreversible environmental damage.

To promote the implementation of the European framework and, more broadly, to facilitate the prosecution and punishment of largely internationalized crime, France actively cooperates with Europol and Eurojust, especially in the context of joint investigations with multiple European countries. Joint investigation teams have been set up to fight international waste trafficking.

Finally, joint training for stakeholders is a vital part of cooperation. The EU funds cross-training programs for police officers, customs officials, and magistrates (e.g., through the CEPOL Academy or the European Judicial Training Network) to foster a shared culture of fighting environmental crime. France also supports bilateral initiatives: in 2024, the Gendarmerie organized a joint exercise with Spain on tracking electronic waste traffickers. Additionally, the National School for the Judiciary has launched a specific module on environmental criminal law available to magistrates from other Member States. All these efforts aim to close the gap between the increasing sophistication of green crimes and the often fragmented and delayed responses of the authorities. They are strengthened by initiatives from the Council of Europe.

2 – The Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law: towards a common framework for cooperation

On May 14, 2025, the Council of Europe adopted a Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law, designed to fill the gaps in the Bern Convention (1979) and strengthen cooperation among states in prosecuting serious environmental offenses. This convention is the first legally binding international instrument focused on fighting environmental crime. It features a broad definition of environmental offenses, improves cross-border evidence sharing, and calls for the establishment of specialized national units coordinated at the European level. ¹⁷

Its purpose is to prevent and combat environmental crime effectively; to promote and improve national and international cooperation in the fight against environmental crime; and to establish minimum standards to guide States in their national legislation. It commits States to prosecuting intentional or grossly negligent offenses against nature and promotes restorative justice through ecological remediation tools and educational sanctions.

3 – The case law of the European Court of Human Rights: an indirect but growing lever

Although the ECHR does not directly sanction environmental damage, it has gradually developed protective case law based on Articles 2, 6, and especially 8 of the Convention. Article 8, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, has been the main means for “indirect” environmental protection since the Lopez-Ostra v. Spain ruling, ¹⁸ whenever an environmental violation has serious consequences for an individual’s private life or health. ¹⁹

The Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland judgment, ²⁰ known as Swiss Seniors, marks a significant milestone: the Court confirms that a serious breach by a State of its climate commitments can be considered a violation of the right to privacy due to the predictable exposure to climate risks that threaten the health and dignity of the applicants.

This decision expands established case law, notably Öneryildiz v. Turkey ²¹ and Tătar v. Romania, ²² which impose positive duties on States to prevent serious environmental risks. In a landmark article, Siofra O’Leary, a former president of the ECHR, interprets this development as a crucial step toward protecting future generations, highlighting that the Court is evolving its flexible interpretation of the Convention to address the systemic challenges posed by climate change. ²³

Thus, while the ECHR does not directly establish criminal liability for states or companies, its case law increasingly influences the practices of national judges and serves as an important tool in strategic climate litigation. This occurs in a particular context, which places the judicial institution under pressure.

III – Criminal justice under pressure: between social expectations, the quest for effectiveness, and the limits of the repressive model

The rise of environmental criminal justice over the past decade has occurred amidst profound changes: increased environmental awareness, unprecedented citizen activism, the internationalization of standards, and more technically complex cases. But these advances are accompanied by structural tensions: between the need for a swift, visible repressive response and the requirements of caution and certainty specific to criminal law; between the search for expressiveness in criminal law, such as with the crime of ecocide, and the realities of investigation, burden of proof, and judicial timelines. These tensions challenge the very purpose of environmental criminal law and prompt us to reconsider its role in a society facing systemic dangers.

1 – Social pressure on the justice system: toward the demanded criminalization of environmental issues

Citizens are no longer content with petitions or protests: they are pursuing legal action. From the Citizens’ Climate Convention, which explicitly called for ecocide to be recognized as a crime, to the many climate and environmental lawsuits filed by NGOs, local authorities, and even younger generations, civil society is demanding a criminal response proportional to the damage caused. This movement is driven by an increasing sense of ecological injustice, fueled by the belief that polluters are seldom prosecuted, while environmental activists are frequently prosecuted.

Furthermore, the rise of environmental activism over the past decade has led to an increase in acts of civil disobedience—such as blockades, intrusions on industrial sites, symbolic coverings of monuments or works of art, mowing, and removal of portraits of the head of state. Although these actions are often claimed to be nonviolent, they still violate common law rules, exposing the perpetrators to criminal charges, especially for damage, trespassing, or obstruction.

This situation places the criminal justice system in a delicate position. Prosecutors and, more broadly, the judicial authorities are tasked with making a complex decision: upholding republican legality while considering the political or societal goals of these mobilizations, which are often supported by a claim of public interest—the protection of the environment—and moral imperatives of ecological survival. ²⁴

The Court of Cassation has gradually developed a nuanced case law on this issue, aligning with the ECHR. It strives to uphold freedom of expression and assembly in a democratic society, while reaffirming the limits set by public order and respect for others’ rights. In a landmark ruling on April 26, 2022, ²⁵ the Criminal Division overturned a conviction for property damage against an environmental activist, ruling that the judges had not adequately balanced the right to free expression, as protected by Article 10 of the ECHR, with the needs of criminal prosecution.

This case law is directly inspired by the criteria established by the ECHR, particularly in the Éon v. France judgment, ²⁶ which states that courts must determine whether interference with freedom of expression serves a legitimate purpose, is prescribed by law, and is proportionate to the objective pursued. In the Ludes and Others v. France judgment, the ECHR found that the conviction of activists for removing presidential portraits did not breach Article 10. ²⁷ It emphasized the careful review by domestic courts in assessing proportionality, considering the activism context. The Court concluded that the penalties—small, suspended fines—were not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

The application of these principles, especially the principle of proportionality, to new forms of environmental activism requires increased legal dialogue and ongoing vigilance to prevent criminal law responses from becoming tools for deterrence or stigmatization.

In this context, the public prosecutor’s office plays a particularly visible role. Prosecutors are on the front lines when it comes to evaluating facts, deciding whether to pursue charges, and sometimes suggesting alternatives to prosecution in sensitive cases. The report by the working group led by Attorney General François Molins ²⁸ rightly stressed the importance of striking a balance between being firm in prosecuting offenses and recognizing the unique nature of certain forms of protest, especially in the environmental sector. It called for a contextual understanding of the facts, proper training for magistrates, and careful monitoring of the continually evolving European case law.

2 – The challenges of effectiveness: evidence, expertise, time frame

Furthermore, environmental criminal justice continues to face several structural challenges. The proliferation of legislation, the lack of precise assessment of environmental crime, and the limitations of the repressive model raise questions about the true effectiveness of criminal law in this area. In a 2021 study, the Ministry of Justice’s statistical service showed that between 2015 and 2019, prosecutors handled 86,200 cases with identified perpetrators related to environmental damage, which is less than 1% of all criminal cases with identified perpetrators during this period. Between 2015 and 2019, 6,190 people were tried in criminal court for environmental offenses, representing 0.3% of all people tried. ²⁹

Major operational obstacles also need to be addressed. First, regarding evidence: environmental offenses often involve complex causal chains, delayed effects, and numerous actors and factors. It is hard to pinpoint individual responsibility within systemic or industrial dynamics. Second, concerning scientific expertise: this is crucial to assess the extent of ecological damage but demands scarce resources, time, and close collaboration between judges, investigators, and specialists. Third, with regard to time constraints: the duration of criminal proceedings (investigation, expert assessments, and judgment) clashes with the urgency of the ecological situation. Water pollution may be judged ten years after the incident, rendering penalties ineffective for both redress and deterrence.

French environmental criminal law suffers from disorganized regulatory proliferation: over 2,000 offenses spread across 15 codes, sometimes featuring outdated classifications and lacking strategic clarity. French environmental criminal law suffers from historical fragmentation due to successive reforms, which are organized primarily around the Environmental Code but also rely on other codes, such as those for rural areas, forestry, mining, public health, and maritime transport, among others. This dispersion multiplies the sources and specific regimes, making it particularly difficult for practitioners to understand.

Moreover, the hierarchy of offenses is not always consistent. Some serious environmental violations are labeled as minor offenses or petty crimes, while others with less serious impacts may face harsher penalties. This inconsistency in how offenses are treated raises questions about the law’s symbolism, clarity, and expressive purpose.

The aforementioned report on the criminal handling of environmental disputes recommends a legislative overhaul, calling for the reconstruction of a clear, hierarchical, and effective environmental criminal law.

Furthermore, the lack of reliable indicators for environmental crime restricts public authorities’ ability to calibrate their actions. The report by the general inspectorates of the Ministries of Justice and Ecology, titled “Justice for the Environment,” mentioned above, pointed out in 2019 the insufficiency of statistical data on cases opened, prosecution rates, and the types of offenses.

To be effective, environmental criminal law must be equipped, simplified, and designed to deliver quick and targeted responses.

3 – Prevention, redress, deterrence: what are the aims of environmental criminal law?

The development of environmental criminal law raises a classic question: what do we really expect from punishment in this area? Prevent future offenses by punishing past illegal behavior? Repair the damage done, including irreversible ecological harm? Deter through the threat of visible punishment? Or to symbolically mark a boundary by defining what is intolerable and setting social standards?

These functions sometimes overlap: environmental restoration is often illusory in cases of ecosystem destruction; deterrence is unreliable when confronting powerful or transnational actors; prevention requires structural measures that extend far beyond criminal sanctions alone.

Above all, these functions cannot be viewed only on a national level but clearly have a global dimension.

4 – The future of international cooperation: towards an ecological international criminal justice system?

As environmental challenges transcend borders and take on a global dimension, criminal justice can no longer be viewed solely within a national context. There is an increasing need for a coordinated and legally robust international response, both to prevent impunity and to ensure sanctions are effective. In this regard, several converging trends, at both the global and European levels, are supporting the gradual development of international environmental criminal justice.

Globally, the debate over ecocide as the fifth international crime under the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), has gained momentum in recent years. In June 2021, a group of experts commissioned by the Stop Ecocide Foundation proposed a formal definition of this crime, understood as: “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.” ³⁰ This initiative aims to add an act that recognizes the serious nature of systematic attacks on the biosphere to the list of the most severe crimes under international law—genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes of aggression. To legally recognize ecocide as a distinct crime, an amendment to the Rome Statute is needed, which requires the agreement of two-thirds of the States Parties.

Without waiting for such expansion, in 2024, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC announced its intention to include serious environmental crimes in the analysis of certain international crimes, particularly those linked to armed conflict situations or mass population displacement. ³¹ The intentional destruction of ecosystems or large-scale environmental pollution could thus, in certain cases, be considered as elements that constitute crimes against humanity or war crimes. This move reflects a growing acknowledgment of the ecological dimension of serious violations of international humanitarian law and fundamental rights, and it opens the door to a broader interpretation of international criminal law.

At the European Union level, another project is emerging: expanding the powers of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to address environmental crimes. Originally established in 2021 to combat offenses affecting the Union’s financial interests (such as subsidy fraud, VAT fraud, and corruption), its mandate could be broadened to include other areas of serious cross-border crime. Environmental crime, which by nature is widespread and structurally transnational (including waste trafficking, maritime pollution, and trafficking in protected species), is among the first candidates for this extension.

Although it remains hypothetical in the short term, the idea is gaining ground, supported by certain countries, such as Germany. If implemented, this reform would overcome the current limitations of traditional judicial cooperation by entrusting a single European authority with the management of complex investigations, with the authority to take direct action in all participating countries.

Pending this development, Eurojust continues to play a key role in coordinating environmental prosecutions among Member States, facilitating information exchange, resolving jurisdictional conflicts, and ensuring compliance with the ne bis in idem principle. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), as the guarantor of the consistent interpretation of EU law, may also be called upon to rule on important preliminary questions in this expanding area.

Thus, the future of environmental criminal justice is also being played out at the international and European institutional levels.

Conclusion

The Paris Agreement sparked unprecedented global momentum. This decade has seen the emergence of a profound legal awareness, including in the criminal justice system, in the wake of climate commitments. The justice system, especially environmental criminal justice, has gradually become a tool for effectiveness and exemplarity. From recognizing ecological damage to increasing civil society mobilization, through national legislative reforms and European progress, the past decade has delivered tangible promises.

Despite continuing weaknesses, environmental criminal justice has clearly increased in visibility, consistency, and ambition. In France, as at the European level, legislative, institutional, and doctrinal developments reflect a new focus on making criminal law a relevant tool to address the severity of ecological damage. The rise in criminal offenses, court specialization, experimentation with innovative procedural tools, and the growing acknowledgment of ecological harm all indicate a deep structural shift.

However, the outlook now seems to be darkening. The momentum for institutionalization has been replaced by a phase of multiple tensions: some states are retreating from their climate and environmental commitments, populists are criticizing the justice system and expertise, the rule of law is under threat, and civil liberties are being eroded, even in Europe. Ecology itself is becoming a topic of ideological divisions, when it is not accused of hindering sovereignty or growth.

But it would be simplistic to end this cycle on a defeatist note. Because the need for action remains. It is more urgent, more demanding, and more irreversible. The driving forces are present: supranational courts that innovate, magistrates who specialize, citizens who take up the law, associations, scientists, and lawyers who do not give up. Environmental criminal justice is neither a luxury nor a utopia; it is one tool among many for confronting the Anthropocene and preserving what can be preserved. It is up to us to provide the means for it to rise to the challenges of the century ahead.

1. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
2. IPBES, Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2019).
3. INTERPOL and UNEP, The Rise of Environmental Crime: A Growing Threat to Natural Resources, Peace, Development and Security (2022).
4. Solomon M Hsiang, Marshall Burke and Edward Miguel, ‘Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict’ (2013) 341(6151) Science 1235367.
5. Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC.
6. IGJ and CGEDD, Une justice pour l’environnement, Mission d’évaluation des relations entre justice et environnement (2019).
7. François Molins (ed), Le traitement pénal du contentieux de l’environnement (Presses Universitaires d’Aix-Marseille (P.U.A.M.) 2023).
8. Law No 2021-1104 of 22 August 2021 on combating climate change and strengthening resilience to its effects, JO 24 August 2021
9. The Citizens’ Convention—gathering 150 randomly selected citizens tasked with proposing measures to fight climate change—had explicitly expressed its desire to create an offense of ecocide, understood in a broad sense: as an international crime against the planet’s safety, subject to prosecution worldwide, similar to crimes against humanity. In its proposals (measure 4.5.1), it called for full recognition of ecocide in both French and international law.
10. Law No 2020-1672 of 24 December 2020 on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, environmental justice, and specialized criminal justice, art 15, JO 26 December 2020.
11. Decree No 2021-286 of 16 March 2021 establishing the jurisdiction and organization of regional centers specializing in environmental offences, JO 18 March 2021
12. Inspection générale de la justice, Une justice pour l’environnement – Mission de suivi, Rapport d’évaluation (in François Molins (ed), Le traitement pénal du contentieux de l’environnement (Presses Universitaires d’Aix-Marseille 2023)) 41–45.
13. Editors’ note: the Public Interest Judicial Agreement (Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (CJIP)) is the French equivalent of the US and British Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA).
14. CJIPs are listed on the Ministry of Justice website. As of May 22, 2025, there were 35 Environmental CJIPEs out of a total of 62
15. Cour de cassation, Criminal Division, 28 January 2020, No 19-80.091.
16. European Parliament resolution of 20 May 2021 on the liability of companies for environmental damage (2020/2027(INI))
17. Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law (opened for signature 5 October 2023, Riga).
18. López Ostra v Spain App no 16798/90 (ECtHR, 9 December 1994) Series A no 303-C.
19. Frédéric Sudre, ‘La jurisprudence “environnementale” de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme au prisme de la “vie privée”’ (2025) 30 Revue Justice Actualités (April).
20. Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland App no 53600/20 (ECtHR, 9 April 2024).
21. Öneryıldız v Turkey App no 48939/99 (ECtHR, 30 November 2004) 41 EHRR 20.
22. Tătar v Romania App no 67021/01 (ECtHR, 27 January 2009)
23. Síofra O’Leary, ‘The contribution of the European Court of Human Rights to the protection of the environment and future generations’ (2023) 4 Quarterly Review of Human Rights
24. Sonya Djemni-Wagner, ‘Militantisme écologiste et désobéissance civile’ (2021) 5 Études 55
25. Cour de cassation, Criminal Chamber, No 21-82.251.
26. Éon v France App no 26118/10 (ECtHR, 14 March 2013).
27. Ludes and Others v France Apps nos 40899/22, 41621/22 and 42956/22 (ECtHR, 3 July 2025)
28. See note 8.
29. Ministry of Justice Statistical Service, Le traitement du contentieux de l’environnement par la justice pénale entre 2015 et 2019, Infostat Justice no 182 (April 2021).
30. See https://www.stopecocide.earth/legal-definition
31. Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, Statement on Environmental Crimes in Conflict Contexts (2024)