Updates on Environmental Criminal Law in France

Environmental criminal law in France has developed steadily over the past several years. Recently, however, there has been a shift of the political narrative — both in Europe and domestically — toward simplification rather than expansion of environmental law. Its practical implications, however, remain uncertain.

Despite the headwinds from this evolving policy landscape, courts, investigative authorities and civil society actors continue to operationalize the existing legislative framework, further embedding criminal environmental enforcement within legal practice. For market participants in France, legal alignment and regulatory preparedness remain essential.

Recent Legislative and Regulatory Developments

• The Agricultural Sovereignty Act (March 24, 2025): This law stands as a political marker — an explicit move to decriminalize certain environmental harms, with the following implications worth noting:
  • Amendment of Species and Habitats Protection: The law narrows the scope of criminal liability to intentional acts or those resulting from “gross negligence,” reversing longstanding case law from the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation), which had allowed prosecution for mere negligence or clumsiness. This move aligns criminal intent more closely with criminal general principles under French law.
  • Alternative Prosecution Measures Expanded: Administrative settlements are now available for alleged destruction of protected species or habitats, signaling a shift toward prioritizing alternative enforcement mechanisms, such as French law environmental deferred prosecution agreements (CJIP).
• PFAS Law No. 2025-188: This brief but high-impact statute introduces phased bans on PFAS in cosmetics, ski wax, apparel and footwear — extending to all textiles by 2030. Enforcement will proceed via administrative notices and penalties. Noncompliance with administrative notices and orders may, however, trigger criminal liability.
• Upcoming Laws: France is currently preparing the transposition of Directive (EU) 2024/1203, which will supposedly extend and reinforce environmental criminal enforcement. National implementation measures for the high-impact EU Regulation 2023/1115 on deforestation (EUDR), covering numerous supply chains, are also under development.

Key Case Law Trends and Judicial Interpretations

• French Supreme Court Rulings: French environmental criminal law is a technically dense and still-maturing field, and as such, high court rulings clarifying the law are much anticipated:
  • Environmental Interim Measures: The French Supreme Court clarified several procedural rules in criminal environmental interim proceedings (référé pénal environnemental), stating that i) environmental NGOs may act to trigger the process but lack standing as formal parties, limiting their procedural rights such as rights of appeal, and ii) defendants must be advised of their right to remain silent if criminally suspected, or the interim order risks nullification.
  • Definition of Watercourses: The existence of watercourses is a constitutive element of several environmental offenses. To qualify as a watercourse, courts must concretely verify that the legal criteria are met (i.e., a naturally formed water flow, sourced from a spring, with sufficient year-round flow) and cannot infer their existence solely from cartographic records, even if drawn by a water police inspector.
  • Environmental Inspectors’ Testimony: Non-sworn-in court statements by environmental inspectors are inadmissible and cannot be the basis for a conviction.
  • Protected Species Lists are Exhaustive: Only species listed in specific ministerial decrees are protected under criminal law. Courts cannot substitute general concerns — such as a species being notoriously endangered or subject to strict administrative controls — for the formal listing requirement.
  • Restoration Orders: Environmental remediation or restoration sentences (remise en état) cannot be imposed as standalone criminal penalties. They can only be used as accessory penalties, and courts must define the required remediation or restoration actions.
• Substantive Case Law
  • Classified Installations (ICPEs): A waste treatment operator was fined for breaching regulatory conditions on gas emissions and stormwater discharge and ignoring administrative warnings.
  • Wind Farm Operator: In a landmark ruling, a local criminal court ruled that a wind farm was harming protected species. It fined the 10 wind farm operators and ordered them to cease all operations for four months. The decision is under appeal.
  • Maritime Environmental Infractions: For the first time, the Marseille Maritime Court convicted a vessel owner for unauthorized anchoring in the protected Calanques zone (to date, convictions only targeted vessel captains personally).
  • EU Timber Regulation (EUTR): Appellate courts in Rennes and Bourges upheld the first two convictions under the EUTR. The cases are now before the Cour de cassation, with rulings expected soon. The EUTR will be replaced by the much broader EUDR at the end of 2025.
  • Environmental Settlements: Beyond the already widely reported Nestlé Waters settlement regarding unauthorized groundwater drilling and treatments, it is also worth noting the Engie settlement in relation to regulatory violations in wetland areas while operating a solar park. The case was settled with a fine and a substantial wetland restoration plan.

Final Takeaways

Despite political headwinds, the environmental criminal law framework in France continues to strengthen in practice. The existing toolbox offers multiple avenues for environmental redress: civil suits under the duty of vigilance or environmental damage actions, criminal prosecution or settlements, and administrative compliance orders or annulments.

The increased technical proficiency of judges, enforcement agencies and legal practitioners is likely to further entrench criminal environmental enforcement as a core regulatory mechanism. Legal precision remains a key challenge. As environmental law grows in complexity, judicial clarification is indispensable. Several pivotal rulings are pending on rarely used or novel legal grounds. For practitioners, these developments promise better — and much welcomed — clarity ahead.