WRITTEN QUESTION E-3526/00

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Ratification of the OECD convention on corrupt practices by European companies in other countries

In 1997 twenty-one countries signed an OECD convention on corrupt practices by European companies in other countries.

Can the Commission say which EU Member States have now ratified the convention and which have not?

Can the Commission give the reasons for delays in ratification by some Member States?

Does the Commission realise that the EU is in a weak position when criticising corruption in Third World countries if corrupt practices in third countries are still not a criminal offence in several Member States?

Does the Commission realise that if some Member States permit corrupt practices and others do not there is, to put it cynically, a competitive advantage for some Member States in placing orders in third countries?

What does the Commission intend to do to force those EU Member States which have not yet done so to ratify the convention as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2001)

To date, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Autria, Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom have ratified the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Anti-bribery convention (in force since February 1999).

Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are expected to follow at the end of 2000 or beginning of 2001 and Portugal at a later stage in 2001. All relevant information is on the OECD-website: http://www.oecd.org/daf/nocorruption/annex2.htm

It is generally acknowledged that, compared to other conventions, ratification and implementation of the OECD anti-bribery convention have been rather speedy so far. The Commission however assumes that on top of the usual difficulties with ratifying international legal texts, the lagging-behind of certain Member States could be due to parallel ratification of a number of instruments dealing with corruption, drawn up by the Community, the Council of Europe and the OECD respectively. Hence, they wish to adopt their national legislation in compliance with all of these international texts, which differ in scope, Union and Council of Europe conventions being more far-reaching.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that those countries that did not fully comply with the highest international anti-corruption standards and still pointed to other countries with respect to their corrupt practices would lose credibility. As stated above, all Member States will soon have enforceable laws in place, which make the bribery of all foreign public officials including those of international public organisations a punishable offence. In this context, the Commission wishes to highlight, that under the recent Community African, Caribbean and Pacific States Agreement (Lomé V) signed in July 2000, the fight against corruption will for the first time be an integral part of the Community's development policy. A consultation procedure is foreseen in serious cases of corruption with the possibility of suspending assistance. The Common service for external relations (SCR) manual of instructions on contracts for works, supplies and services concluded for the purposes of Community cooperation with third countries already provides the possibility to suspend or cancel project financing if corrupt practices of any kind are discovered at any stage of the award process and if the contracting authority fails to take all appropriate measures to remedy the situation.

In view of the above, there will be no longer any relevant discrepancy in Member States' laws in this respect. The Commission draws the Honourable Member's attention to the fact, that it was one of the principal goals of the OECD Convention to even out inequalities in anti-corruption legislation with a view to removing the unethical competitive advantages to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Community is not a party to the OECD Convention. The Commission has therefore no legal means to influence the ratification procedures of Member States although it agrees with the Honourable Member that swift ratification by the missing Member States would be highly desirable. The Commission also recalls that it actively supported the preparation of the two Community joint positions, which contributed to the establishment of the Convention.