EU Green Claims Directive Penalties and Enforcement

Authorities cannot impose a Green Claims Directive penalty under COM(2023) 166 because the proposal has not become law. Its proposed competent authorities, complaint route, verification system, corrective measures, and Article 17 penalties have no independent legal effect.

The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive already regulates misleading business-to-consumer practices. Directive (EU) 2024/825 adds specific green-transition rules to that framework; Member States had to transpose it by 27 March 2026 and must apply their measures from 27 September 2026. The applicable authority, procedure, remedy, and penalty still depend on the Member State and the law used.

The Commission proposal builds enforcement around Member State competent authorities. Member States would designate one or more authorities responsible for applying and enforcing the directive, define responsibilities where several authorities exist, and notify the Commission and other Member States of those authorities and their areas of competence.

Those authorities would need inspection and enforcement powers. The proposal lists powers to access documents and data, require information, start investigations or proceedings, require remedies or other action to end infringements, adopt injunctive relief where appropriate, and impose penalties under the directive's penalty article.

Proposed Article 16 adds a complaint route. A person, legal entity, or organisation with a legitimate interest could submit a substantiated complaint based on objective circumstances. The authority would assess it, explain whether it accepted or refused the request, and take necessary steps if the complaint was confirmed; the proposal also provides for review of an authority's decision, act, or failure to act under national procedures.

Under the proposal, a detected problem would not automatically produce a fine. Competent authorities would conduct regular checks of explicit environmental claims and environmental labelling schemes, evaluate suspected infringements, and require corrective action when substantiation, communication, or labelling-scheme requirements were not met.

The Commission proposal framed corrective action as bringing the claim or scheme into compliance within 30 days or ceasing use of the non-compliant claim. The Council general approach changes that wording toward corrective action without delay where the competent authority considers it necessary and appropriate, and expressly extends corrective action logic to environmental labelling scheme owners and traders displaying labels.

The Commission proposal would leave Member States to lay down national penalty rules for infringements of national measures adopted under the directive while setting EU-level principles. Penalties would have to be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. Authorities would consider factors such as gravity, duration, intent or negligence, mitigation, financial strength, economic benefit, previous infringements, and cross-border penalty information where available.

The proposal also identifies sanction types at EU level: fines designed to remove economic benefit and increase for repeat infringements, confiscation of revenues from relevant transactions, and temporary exclusion from public procurement and public funding. The Council general approach keeps the penalty principle but marks the listed criteria as non-exhaustive and indicative where applicable, adds environmental labelling scheme owners to several penalty criteria, and removes or brackets some detailed sanction-list text in the negotiating document.

The Commission proposal uses ex-ante verification while preserving authority and court powers. Member States would set up procedures for verifying the substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims and environmental labelling schemes before a claim was made public or a label displayed. A verifier could issue a certificate of conformity where the draft requirements were met.

The Council general approach adds a simplified procedure for specified claims, so its position should not be described as requiring third-party verification for every claim. Both texts also say a certificate does not prejudge assessment under Directive 2005/29/EC by national authorities or courts. The Council text adds certificate notification and management through IMI, public certificate lists, verifier access, and competent-authority action where a certificate is annulled or withdrawn.

The Green Claims proposal was designed as lex specialis, meaning a more specific set of rules for substantiating and communicating voluntary environmental claims, while the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive remains the broader consumer-law framework. Under the Commission proposal, microenterprises exempt from specified Green Claims requirements would still remain within UCPD scope.

The Council general approach makes the overlap more explicit. It says the Green Claims requirements apply on top of Directive 2005/29/EC and prevail for their specific aspects in case of conflict, but national authorities or courts can still find a practice unfair under UCPD provisions even where the Green Claims requirements or simplified procedure are met. Directive (EU) 2024/825 also amends the UCPD to add green-transition protections, including restrictions on generic environmental claims and certain offset-based climate claims.

An enforcement-ready file should make the authority, verifier, and UCPD overlap visible without guessing national procedure. For each explicit environmental claim or label reference, keep the claim text, publication channel, trader or scheme owner, substantiation summary, communication material, verifier/certificate status, and any corrective action or withdrawal record.

The record should also identify which official text supports the enforcement assumption: Commission proposal text, Council general approach text, Directive (EU) 2024/825, or UCPD guidance. The proposal and Council text cannot establish a final national penalty regime.