The organization for political ecology – Polekol participated in the Public Debate on the Draft Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Law, by sending comments that should contribute to these laws better recognizing and sanctioning the endangerment of the environment.
Summary of Plekol’s contributions:
Polekol demanded the urgent introduction of Directive (EU) 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law (Environmental Crime Directive), in order to bring the legislation into line with the growing threat of environmental crime, which globally records growth of 5-7% per year and has the characteristics of organized crime.
It was pointed out that the existing legal framework and judicial practice in Serbia are not aligned with the requirements for environmental protection, which represents a serious risk to the public good. Polekol emphasized that normative changes are necessary in order to bridge this gap and enable more effective protection of the environment through the criminal justice system.
Special attention is paid to criminal acts related to forest theft, forest devastation, illegal hunting and fishing. Polekol suggested that prison sentences and fines should be imposed, along with additional measures to protect and improve the environment.
In the report, it is emphasized that the courts in practice act leniently towards the perpetrators of environmental crimes, awarding punishments at the minimum of the legal framework, which does not contribute to the necessary degree of prevention. Polekol pointed to the fact that only in 12.1% of cases was a prison sentence imposed, while in many cases house arrest is applied.
The research that Polekol referred to showed a high percentage of repeat offenders among the perpetrators of these crimes – as many as 37.8% are repeat offenders, with many having been convicted of the same offense more than once. These data further confirm the lack of effectiveness of the current penal policy.
As a mandatory measure, Polekol proposed that the courts impose an obligation to take measures to protect and improve the environment for all environmental violations. It was pointed out that the current practice did not apply this obligation in any of the analyzed cases.
Polekol also pointed to a serious failure in environmental protection, since conditional sentence, as the dominant sanction (52% of cases), does not include the obligation of protective measures. It was requested that this practice be changed in order to improve the protection and preservation of nature.
