Environmental fines could rise to €40 million
New rules give the Public Prosecution Service and environmental enforcers more options to tackle serious pollution.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
According to NOS, new rules provide for much higher fines for companies that seriously breach environmental regulations. It remains unclear when all the provisions will enter into force. NOS reports that fines could rise to €40 million and that prosecuting directors will also become more explicitly possible.
The new rules are intended to bring criminal law more closely into line with environmental cases in which pollution can have major consequences, but where prosecution has so far been difficult. It will also become harder for companies to rely solely on an old or incomplete permit.
NOS reports that danger to the living environment could in itself become an independent ground for prosecution. This means there would not first have to be demonstrable human victims. According to the reports, the changes expand the options available to the Public Prosecution Service and specialised environmental enforcers.
According to NOS, the maximum fine will rise to €40 million. NOS reports that, until now, prosecutors in environmental cases generally sought amounts of several hundred thousand euros. According to NOS, the level of any final sentence will depend on the offence, its consequences, the company’s role and the judge’s decision.
PFAS pollution is an important catalyst for the debate. The national government states that companies must prevent or limit PFAS discharges and emissions as far as possible. According to the national government, municipalities and provinces check whether companies comply with the rules under the Activities in the Living Environment Decree.
The rules could affect, among others, the chemical industry, waste processors and companies working with contaminated soil. For businesses, the change could entail greater legal and financial risks in cases of serious breaches. For local residents and environmental organisations, stricter enforcement could increase the scope for tackling pollution at an earlier stage.
The precise legal text and the date on which all the provisions will enter into force were not fully available in the public sources consulted. It is also unclear how much additional capacity regulators and the Public Prosecution Service will receive. Environmental criminologist Marieke Kluin warns, according to NOS, that capacity shortages and fragmentation between services could still make prosecution difficult.
Also show where in Europe and in the world
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- According to NOS, the new rules expand the options for tackling serious environmental offences through criminal law.
- According to NOS, fines could rise to €40 million.
- The national government requires companies to prevent or limit PFAS discharges and emissions.
Left
Arguments Stricter fines and personal responsibility for directors are needed because pollution often affects local residents and nature for many years.
Values Environmental protection, public health and the principle that the polluter pays.
Consequences More enforcement could stop pollution earlier, but also requires sufficient public capacity.
Centre
Arguments The approach must be legally workable and proportionate, with clear rules, reliable permits and independent evidence.
Values Legal certainty, workability and protection of the public interest.
Consequences A clearer framework could strengthen proceedings, but fragmented oversight could limit its effect.
Right
Arguments Companies should be dealt with firmly in cases of deliberate breaches, but should not be punished for rules that change retrospectively or permits issued by the government itself.
Values Protection of property, predictability and economic continuity.
Consequences Heavy fines could act as a deterrent, but unclear rules could hinder investment and production.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved with corrections · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The core of the report is based on a recent NOS publication and the national government’s official PFAS information. The precise legal basis and date of entry into force were not fully verified and are therefore explicitly identified as uncertain.
- confirmed Fines for serious environmental offences could rise to €40 million. — Mentioned in the recent NOS publication. source
- confirmed Danger to the living environment could independently become grounds for prosecution. — Described by NOS on the basis of the new rules. source
- confirmed Companies must prevent or limit PFAS discharges as far as possible. — Stated on the national government’s official PFAS page. source
- uncertain The precise date of entry into force was not fully available. — Could not be established from the public sources consulted. source
1 correction(s) applied
- Was: The rules have been fully checked and enter into force immediately.Now: The precise legal text and date of full entry into force were not fully available in the sources consulted. (editorial code)
Editor's note
The increase to a maximum of €40 million and the broader prosecution options were reported by NOS. The full primary legislation and the precise date of entry into force could not be established; the status is therefore insufficient_sources.Sources
- Nieuwe regels maken harder optreden tegen milieucriminaliteit mogelijk — NOS
- Regels voor PFAS — Rijksoverheid
More on this in Dutch media
- de Volkskrant — „milieucriminaliteit pfas”
- NU.nl — „milieucriminaliteit pfas”
- De Telegraaf — „milieucriminaliteit pfas”