On 29 April 2026, the Federal Government adopted a bill to transpose Directive EU (2024/1203) on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The bill tightens environmental criminal law across a number of areas. From a business perspective, the significant increase envisaged in fines under section 30 Act on Regulatory Offences (Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz, “OWiG”) will not be the only practical impact of the bill.
The proposed changes apply to more than just environmental offences or industries with high environmental impact. Section 30 OWiG will be revised as a whole, with significant consequences for all companies and all offences defined in this section. The bill’s effects will therefore be felt well beyond the areas falling within the Environmental Crime Directive’s purview.
I. Increased company fines under section 30 OWiG
Besides its specific amendments to environmental criminal law, the government bill increases fines imposed on legal persons and on associations of persons under section 30 OWiG.
1. Higher fine caps across the board
The government bill raises the maximum fine imposed on legal persons and on associations of persons to EUR 40 million in cases of intent, and EUR 20 million in cases of negligence. This change is not limited to environmental offences, however, as section 30 OWiG will be revised as a whole. According to the current version of the draft, the higher fine caps would apply to all companies and all offences defined in section 30 OWiG across the board.
2. Impact beyond environmental criminal law
The legal regime of section 30 OWiG is already the principal basis of corporate penalties in Germany. So the changes envisaged may also affect proceedings in connection with corruption, fraud, tax offences, antitrust violations, money laundering or other white-collar crime. This means that the government bill tightens laws on corporate penalties overall, even though its initial purpose is to transpose provisions of EU environmental criminal law.
3. Statutory criteria for fixing penalties; growing importance of compliance
The government bill also lays down criteria for imposing fines on legal persons and associations of persons (these have not been specified by statutory law to date). Factors to include will be the severity, duration and scope of the act, the company’s economic circumstances, any previous violations, compliance measures, as well as internal investigations and restitution for harm caused (section 30(2a) draft OWiG). This codifies the actual practice of many public authorities and courts when setting penalties.
Companies should note that authorities and courts will be required in future to take express account of compliance measures and internal investigations into company-specific violations. For companies themselves, robust and effective compliance management systems, early detection of violations, and a structured approach to suspected offences will be more important than ever. The reform could at the same time give a new lease of life to discussions about introducing separate environmental criminal legislation.
4. Universal succession for fines
The draft bill introduces a provision on universal succession by which fines can also be imposed on a legal successor (section 30(3a) draft OWiG). Acquirors of companies or industrial sites may therefore be assuming responsibility for possible past offences connected to the assets acquired. The evaluation of legacy regulatory risks will therefore play an even bigger role in transactions in future.
II. Tightening of environmental criminal law
The government bill not only increases company fines, but also includes numerous amendments to the environmental offences set out in the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, “StGB”) as well as in ancillary criminal legislation (such as the Federal Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz) or the Chemicals Act (Chemikaliengesetz)). The bill significantly expands the scope of criminal liability and further steps up the enforcement of environmental offences.
1. Expansion of criminal liability in environmental matters
With this reform, the Federal Government is implementing the requirements of Directive (EU) 2024/1203, which aims to ensure more effective investigation and prosecution of environmental crime across the European Union. The government bill accordingly follows the Directive’s general approach of significantly expanding criminal liability in environmental matters. In particular, it provides for the expansion of existing environmental offences, the introduction of new offences, the broader criminalisation of attempts, and enhanced coverage of negligent and reckless conduct, while simultaneously increasing the statutory penalties in a large number of areas. This affects the following in particular: offences relating to water pollution (section 324 StGB), soil pollution (section 324a StGB), air pollution (section 325 StGB), the unlawful handling of waste (section 326 StGB), and the unlawful operation of installations (section 327 StGB). In some cases, it will in future be sufficient that conduct poses an abstract risk or is capable of causing significant environmental damage, without any actual damage or even a concrete endangerment materialising. This significantly shifts criminal liability to earlier stages of conduct that would previously not even have qualified as an attempt.
The bill also introduces a new offence of “unauthorised execution of projects” (section 327a draft StGB). Certain projects requiring an environmental impact assessment may already give rise to criminal liability if carried out without the necessary authorisation, even where they are merely abstractly capable of causing substantial damage to animals, plants, water, air, soil or ecosystems.
In addition, the bill introduces a general regime of criminal product liability in environmental matters. Under this regime, the placing on the market of a product in breach of environmental protection prohibitions or requirements is subject to criminal penalties where its widespread use is capable, through emissions into environmental media, of causing an abstract risk to persons, ecosystems, animals or plants. The provision also effectively extends criminal liability to the person placing the product on the market.
2. “Ecosystems” as a new protected interest
One of the key innovations of the government bill is the explicit recognition of “ecosystems” as a protected interest under environmental criminal law. The term is defined in the bill (section 330d(1), no. 2 draft StGB) and encompasses habitat types, fungi and microorganism communities and their abiotic environment, interacting as a functional unit of at least medium size. This protected interest, defined in broad and somewhat indeterminate terms, is incorporated into numerous provisions on environmental offences. The new criterion is likely to be of considerable practical significance, while at the same time giving rise to new interpretative issues — in particular what is meant by the “substantial” or “widespread” damage that is often required in the context of such offences.
3. Criminal liability risks despite administrative authorisation
Based on the principle of administrative dependency (Verwaltungsakzessorietät), criminal liability under environmental criminal law generally does not arise where the conduct in question has been officially authorised. However, section 330d(1), no. 5 StGB (in future section 330d(1), no. 7 draft StGB) already creates an important exception: where an authorisation was obtained through corruption, extortion or coercion, it cannot be used as a legal shield (“abuse clause”).
The EU Directive narrows the legalising effect of administrative authorisations even further by also excluding situations where the authorisation is in manifest breach of relevant substantive provisions. However, the government bill does not identify any need for separate transposition measures in this respect: according to section 44(1) Administrative Procedure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz), an administrative act is in any case null and void if it suffers from a particularly serious defect and this is manifest. An administrative act that is null and void on this basis cannot give rise to any exculpatory legal effect under criminal law, either.
This nevertheless raises the bar for companies: with the EU Directive, section 330d(1), no. 5 StGB (in future section 330d(1), no. 7 draft StGB) is likely to gain significantly in importance, whereas previously it had very limited practical relevance. Businesses should therefore incorporate appropriate monitoring mechanisms in their compliance processes to determine whether authorised activities manifestly breach substantive law and develop suitable remediation strategies.
III. Extended investigative powers
The reform goes beyond changes to substantive law, simultaneously introducing greater investigative powers in criminal proceedings. Particularly serious environmental crimes are to be added to the list of offences permitting telecommunications surveillance under section 100a Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozeßordnung), giving investigative authorities considerably greater powers of intervention. For companies, this increases the risk of extensive internal and external investigations.
IV. Implications for companies
The proposed changes are likely to significantly increase the practical importance of environmental criminal law and corporate sanctions law, so companies should not delay in addressing the potential implications. The government bill affects not only conventional industrial or environmental enterprises but – owing to the overarching amendments to section 30 OWiG – potentially all companies. Businesses should therefore assess whether their existing compliance management systems satisfy the tightened requirements and whether their documentation, monitoring and escalation processes are sufficiently robust. This is particularly important given that the government bill explicitly recognises compliance measures as a relevant factor in assessing fines imposed on legal persons and on associations of persons.
The reform also increases the importance of internal investigations, resilient organisational structures and an early response to potential compliance violations. The proposed expansion of criminal investigative powers – especially with respect to telecommunications surveillance – is also likely to result in a more rigorous enforcement of (environmental) criminal offences.
Forward
