While the examination of the agricultural bill, discussed since Wednesday May 15 in the National Assembly, is coming to an end, a new article woke up the Hemicycle on Friday May 24 in the afternoon. By a narrow majority of 39 votes to 35, deputies adopted an amendment rewriting article 13, which modifies the sanctions in the event of attacks on protected species and natural habitats. A rewrite denounced by left-wing opposition groups as an environmental regression ” brutal “.
In its original intention, this article aimed to adapt the sanctions regime to recognize the ” sincerity “ farmers in certain violations that they could be led to commit. An example put forward by the government is that of people who cut down trees affected by bark beetles, in application of health rules, but who also shelter nests of protected species and today risk seeing themselves prosecuted for this – even if the Prosecutions for these cases are rare, and sanctions even more so.
The rewriting amendment, proposed by the government and adopted on Friday, stipulates that only environmental damage “intentional” be punished criminally. All violations committed within the framework of legal or regulatory obligations, or when the act in question has administrative authorization or a forest management document, would by default be considered unintentional. A framework considered far too permissive by the ranks of the left, who denounce a reversal of the burden of proof.
“The first time we’ve seen this in law”
“This is the first time that we have seen this in law, the fact of firstly considering the non-intentionality of a person who commits an offensedenounced Manon Meunier (La France insoumise, LFI, Haute-Vienne). The basis is to consider that everyone knows the law. And then, it is up to the judge to consider whether a crime is intentional or not. What you are proposing is serious. This means that to be able to go to court, it will first be necessary to prove the intentionality of an environmental attack. »
The lawyer specializing in environmental law, Arnaud Gossé, confirms that with this provision, “the burden of proof shifts, which creates a legal precedent.”
For all unintentional cases, the administrative response provided for in the text would consist of an awareness course on environmental issues. And for violations subject to criminal proceedings, a financial transaction would make it possible to put an end to public action, which the elected representatives of the LFI camp denounced as favoring “the richest polluters”.
You have 35.54% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.