On October 17, 2025, the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection published a bill to amend environmental criminal law through the implementation of Directive (EU) 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, which replaces Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC. The so-called “Ecocide” Directive of April 11, 2024, aims to harmonize the regulation of environmental crimes and the imposition of penalties across the Member States of the European Union, thereby ensuring the effective protection of the environment and contributing to the achievement of Sustainability Goal 13 of the United Nations 2030 Agenda (we have already reported on this topic). Pursuant to Article 28 (1) of the Directive, Member States such as Germany are required to implement its provisions by May 21, 2026. The following section focuses on the amendments and additions to the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, “StGB”) and the Act on Regulatory Offences (Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten, “OWiG”), insofar as implementation is necessary.
Implementation of Criminal Offenses
Many provisions of the Directive are already reflected in German criminal law, particularly in Sections 324 et seq. StGB and in various offenses under ancillary criminal legislation. The main changes arise from the reclassification of numerous offenses as suitability offenses (Eignungsdelikte) in the future. In addition, the Directive introduces the “introduction, release, or importation of energy” as a new criminal act and recognizes the “ecosystem” as an independent environmental medium. Further amendments include the creation of aggravating circumstances in cases involving catastrophic environmental consequences (ecocide) and the expansion of attempted criminal liability (see new Section 325a (2) sentence 2 and Section 327 (3) StGB). In many cases, the minimum-maximum penalties prescribed by the Directive also necessitate an upward adjustment of the German penalty framework. Conversely, since gross negligence is already covered in all relevant environmental criminal provisions of the StGB, only minor revisions are required in that regard.
The newly introduced offenses primarily relate to the marketing of environmentally hazardous products, the execution of projects requiring environmental impact assessments without approval, and activities concerning invasive alien species of Union-wide significance. A more detailed list of these offenses is available here.
Addition of the Characteristic “Ecosystem”
The ecosystem is to be newly defined in Section 330d (1) No. 2 StGB and means “an ecologically significant, complex, dynamic system of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and their abiotic environment in a functional unit that includes habitat types, habitats of species, and species populations.” The term “ecosystem” is added to the following provisions:
- Section 309 (6) No. 4 StGB (misuse of ionizing radiation)
- Section 311 (1) and (3) StGB (release of ionizing radiation)
- Section 324a (1) No. 1 StGB (soil contamination)
- Section 325 (1) No. 3 StGB (air pollution)
- Section 325a (2) StGB (causing noise, vibrations, and non-ionizing radiation)
- Section 326 (1) No. 4 lit. b and (6) StGB (unauthorized handling of waste)
- Section 327 (2) sentences 1 and 2 StGB (unauthorized operation of facilities)
- Section 327a StGB (unauthorized execution of projects)
- Section 328 (1) No. 2 and (3) StGB (unauthorized handling of radioactive substances and other dangerous substances and goods)
- Section 330 (2) No. 1 StGB (qualification)
- Section 330d (1) No. 2, (2) sentence 2 StGB (definitions)
Further Adjustments to Existing Offenses
The Directive also narrows criminal liability for violations of environmental administrative law to cases involving “significant” damage but defines such offenses as suitability offense. The occurrence of actual damage is therefore not required; rather, it is sufficient that the act can cause significant harm. Consequently, several criminal provisions must be amended to change their classification from concrete endangerment offenses to potential endangerment offenses, including § 325a (2) StGB, § 326 (1) No. 4(b) StGB, § 327(2) No. 3 sentence 1 StGB, and § 328(3) Nos. 1 and 2 StGB. In other provisions, such as § 324(1) and § 324a (1) StGB, the result-based offenses are retained, as lower thresholds apply elsewhere.
In addition, a second sentence will be added to § 324 (1) sentence 1 StGB (water pollution), expanding the characteristic of “extraction”. This amendment clarifies that even reductions in water volume that do not lead to complete drainage are punishable. Minor contamination or insignificant changes, however, remain non-punishable, thereby maintaining the distinction between criminal offenses and administrative infractions.
Furthermore, the concept of environmental product liability has recently been incorporated into the StGB. The criminalization of placing certain environmentally hazardous products on the market in violation of administrative regulations plays a significant role in both European and German criminal law, as such acts can cause extensive environmental harm. Considering the emissions requirement, it is considered more appropriate not to create a new criminal offense, but to integrate environmental product liability into §§ 324, 324a, and 325 StGB. Additionally, the emissions “noise,” “vibrations,” “thermal energy,” and “non-ionizing radiation” are to be added to §§ 324a and 325a StGB.
Air pollution under § 325 StGB will be comprehensively revised and streamlined. In particular, the requirement that the act occur “during the operation of a facility” and the exclusion of motor, rail, air, or water vehicles from the scope of the offense will be removed. According to the Federal Ministry of Justice, this amendment will not lead to over-criminalization of traffic, as administrative accessory liability must still be established and the element of “causing significant and lasting damage” will rarely be met in the context of vehicle emissions.
A completely new provision, § 327a StGB, will also be introduced. Consistent with the Directive, it criminalizes the unauthorized execution of projects without approval. Previously, § 327 StGB applied only to projects requiring an environmental impact assessment or a corresponding preliminary examination as part of the approval process. The new § 327a StGB will therefore primarily target large-scale industrial projects and facilities capable of causing significant harm to animals, plants, water, air, soil, or ecosystems.
Finally, the Directive also criminalizes the placement on the market and export of certain raw materials and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation, as well as the transport, supply, or export bans under the EU Deforestation Regulation. However, as it remains unclear when Article 3 of the Regulation will take effect, implementation of the corresponding penalties will be deferred to a separate legislative project.
Ecocide as a Qualification and New Penalty Range
Additional qualified offenses are to be incorporated into § 330 (2) StGB (and correspondingly into § 311 (3) StGB). According to Recital 21 of the Directive, the consequences of intentional environmental crimes that are catastrophic in scale and comparable to ecocide should themselves constitute criminal offenses.
The draft version of § 330 StGB is based on the English version of Article 3 (3) of the Directive, which distinguishes between ecosystems and habitats on the one hand and water, soil, and air quality on the other. The German translation, by contrast, differentiates between “destruction” and “damage.” To align with the Directive’s requirements, elements of the previous model provision in § 330 (1) sentence 2 no. 1 StGB will be relocated to the qualifying circumstances in paragraph 2. Moreover, the environmental medium “air” will be explicitly included, along with the destruction or irreversible, permanent, far-reaching, and significant damage to an ecosystem of considerable size or ecological value, or to a habitat within a protected area.
However, the precise legal scope of the term ecocide, and which specific acts will ultimately fall within its ambit, remains to be clarified through future case law.
The references to active repentance (Tätige Reue) in § 330b (1) StGB concerning § 325a (2) and (3) No. 2 StGB are to be deleted. Given the new structure of § 325a (2) StGB, it would be disproportionate to allow facility operators to obtain mitigation of punishment or even impunity merely by ceasing the unlawful act.
To fully implement the Directive, the bill also provides for increased penalties for several existing offenses, including § 326 (2) and (3) StGB, § 327 (2) StGB, and § 330 (2) StGB. In certain cases, the range of imprisonment will be raised to one to ten years, as German criminal law does not recognize the maximum term of eight years prescribed by the Directive.
Corporate Fines
Section 30 (2) sentence 1 OWiG is to be amended by raising the maximum fine applicable to legal entities and associations of persons. The Directive establishes minimum requirements regarding the maximum amount of fines to be imposed on associations for intentional environmental crimes but leaves it to the Member States to decide whether to adopt a fixed ceiling or a turnover-based flexible system (Recital 33). The OWiG currently follows the former approach, setting a fixed upper limit of EUR 10 million, and the German legislature intends to maintain this structure.
The bill therefore provides for the following increase in the maximum amount:
- in the case of an intentional offense, EUR 40 million instead of EUR 10 million
- in the case of a negligent offense, EUR 20 million instead of EUR 5 million
The bill goes beyond the directive in three respects:
- Firstly, in the case of intentional offenses, all intentional environmental offenses are covered, not only those explicitly listed in the Directive. The Directive provides for a maximum of EUR 40 million only for certain categories of offenses; for others, it specifies a (minimum) ceiling of EUR 24 million.
- Second, the increase applies not only to environmental offenses but to all intentional offenses. This general adjustment is intended to avoid inconsistencies and fragmentation within the sanctioning framework.
- Thirdly, the maximum fine for negligent offenses is likewise increased, although this is not required under the Directive. Consistent with § 17 (2) OWiG, the upper limit for negligent offenses remains half of that for intentional offenses, thereby preserving the traditional proportionality between the two.
The increase in corporate fines for offenses committed by managing personnel also seeks to correct an existing imbalance in current law. In certain cases, administrative offenses can result in higher fines than comparable criminal offenses, for example, in the case of antitrust fines or violations of the GwG, where fines of up to 10% or 5% of annual group turnover are possible. The amendment ensures that the consequences for associations are not more severe when a manager commits an administrative offense rather than a criminal one.
Conclusion
A key element of the draft bill is the introduction of new legal concepts and offenses, most notably the recognition of the “ecosystem” as an independent environmental medium and the classification of “ecocide” as a qualified offense. The bill also provides for a substantial increase in sanctions applicable to both individuals and corporations. Among other things, custodial sentences may extend up to ten years, while corporate fines will rise significantly. Overall, the proposed reform not only aims to fulfil the requirements of the EU Directive but in many respects goes beyond them. This is largely attributable to the specific structure of German criminal and administrative offense law. In seeking to preserve this framework, the legislature has opted for a minimalist implementation approach.
However, this approach represents a missed opportunity to comprehensively modernize the corporate sanctions regime under Section 30 OWiG. The existing imbalance remains. Large corporations with high turnover may still face higher fines for administrative offenses than for criminal violations, for instance, under anti-money-laundering or data protection laws. Such fines are typically turnover-based and lack a fixed statutory cap. While a full overhaul of the Corporate Sanctions Act (Verbandssanktionengesetz) was not necessary to implement the Directive, the adoption of a complementary regulatory framework, one providing clear defense rights for corporations and guidelines for cooperation with investigative authorities, would have been highly desirable.
The bill has been submitted by the Federal Ministry of Justice to the federal states and relevant associations for comment by 14 November 2025. Following this consultation, a revised version will be adopted by the Federal Cabinet and subsequently presented to the Bundestag. It remains to be seen what amendments or limitations stakeholders will propose, and which of these will ultimately find their way into the final implementation act.