Report from the Commission to the Council based on Article 9 of the Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector {SEC(2007) 808}
Date: 2007-06-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: corruption, fight against crime, offence, penalty, private sector, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 18.6.2007 
COM(2007) 328 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

based on Article 9 of the Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on 
combating corruption in the private sector 

{SEC(2007) 808} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

based on Article 9 of the Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on 
combating corruption in the private sector 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The  Council1  adopted  the  Council  Framework  Decision  2003/568/JHA  of  22  July  2003  on 
combating  corruption  in  the  private  sector2  pursuant  to  Title  VI  of  the  Treaty  on  European 
Union. As stated at paragraph (10) of the Preamble, its aim is: 

“…to ensure that both active and passive corruption in the private sector are criminal offences 
in all Member States, that legal persons may also be held responsible for such offences, and 
that these offences incur effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.” 

At its heart is the requirement that Member States3 criminalise two types of conduct, which 
can be summarised as follows (Article 2 of the Framework Decision refers): 

– 

– 

promising, offering or giving a bribe to a person in the private sector in order that he 
or  she  do  something  or  refrain  from  doing  something,  in  breach  of  that  person's 
duties 

equesting or receiving a bribe, or the promise of such, while working in the private 
sector, in order to do something, or refrain from doing something, in breach of one's 
duties. 

The  Commission  considers  that  it  is  vitally  important  to  address  corruption  wherever  it 
occurs. Corruption in the private sector has a direct impact on competitiveness and economic 
development. By tackling private sector corruption, Member States will reinforce the internal 
market  and  strengthen  their  economies.  Furthermore,  these  measures  will  have  a  positive 
impact on relations with the European Community's external trade partners. 

The development of instruments  

The prevention of and fight against corruption has long been a priority of the EC. A number 
of  legal  instruments  dealing  with  corruption  were  adopted  by  the  EC  from  1995  onwards, 
prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  Joint  Action  on  corruption  in  the  private  sector.  These  earlier 
instruments were as follows: 

- Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests, 1995 and its 
associated Protocols4 

1 

2 
3 

4 

2524th Meeting of the Council of the European Union (Agriculture and Fisheries) held in Brussels on 
22 July 2003 
OJ L 192, 31.7.2003, p. 54 
Throughout  this  Report,  the  term  "Member  States"  will  be  taken  to  refer  to  the  EU-25;  Romania  and 
Bulgaria will be invited to contribute to any subsequent Report which may be prepared 
OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 3 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
-  Convention  on  the  Fight  against  Corruption  involving  Officials  of  the  European 
Communities or Officials of Member States of the European Union, 19975 

Attention then turned to the private sector, and the Joint Action on corruption in the private 
sector (Joint Action of 22 December 1998 (98/742/JHA))6 was developed. This Joint Action 
was seen as a first step in addressing the impact of corruption on the internal market and in 
international trade. It called on Member States to establish: 

- both passive and active corruption in the private sector as criminal offences, at least where 
this conduct led to distortion of competition in relation to the awarding of contracts 

- the liability of legal persons in relation to active corruption. 

Instruments relating to corruption in the private sector by other bodies 

It should be noted that during the late 1990's the Council of Europe also developed a range of 
measures  and  instruments  to  address  various  aspects  of  corruption,  among  which  was  its 
Criminal Law Convention against Corruption7. The Convention included Articles on private 
sector  corruption  (active  bribery  -  Article  7  and  passive  bribery  –  Article  8).  These  were 
broader  than  the  approach  taken  in  the  Joint  Action,  and  subsequently  in  the  Framework 
Decision, because they did not provide for any restriction to conduct involving a distortion of 
competition. It also included a provision on corporate liability (Article 18), which is narrower 
than that in the Framework Decision, as it does not extend to passive bribery. While both the 
Framework Decision and the Convention provide that the term "legal person" is based on the 
definition of that term in the applicable national law, the context is potentially broader under 
the Framework Decision, because it specifically extends the scope of the offences of passive 
and active corruption to business activities within profit and non-profit entities. 

To  date,  the  Council  of  Europe  Criminal  Law  Convention  has  been  signed  by  all  Member 
States  but  only  ratified  by  198.  Certain  Member  States,  as  permitted  by  the  ratification 
process, have made reservations relating to one or more of the Articles mentioned previously.9 
Although  the  second  evaluation  round  (2003-2005)  carried  out  by  the  Council  of  Europe 
mechanism,  GRECO,  included  Article  18  Corporate  Liability  within  its  scope,  its  focus  did 
not  extend  to  Articles  7  and  8  on  corruption  in  the  private  sector.  Accordingly,  the  current 
Report does not contain cross-references to Council of Europe evaluations. 

The  United  Nations  has  also  addressed  private  sector  corruption.  Article  12  of  the  UN 
Convention  against  Corruption  (UNCAC),  2003  does  not  require  State  Parties  to  establish 
criminal  offences  in  relation  to  private  sector  corruption.  Its  scope  is  primarily  limited  to 
encouraging  States  Parties  to  take  measures  to  prevent  private  sector  corruption,  enhance 
accounting  and  auditing  standards  and  encourage  transparency  and  to  put  in  place  civil, 
administrative or criminal penalties for failure to comply with them. 

5 
6 

7 

8 
9 

EN 

OJ C 195, 25.6.1997, p. 1. 
Joint Action of 22 December 1998 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on 
European Union, on corruption in the private sector (98/742/JHA) OJ L 358, 31.12.1998, p. 2-4. 
Criminal  Law  Convention 
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty 
The exceptions are Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain. 
Belgium, Czech Republic, Poland – Articles 7, 8; United Kingdom – Article 7; Hungary – Article 8. 

(ETS  No.  173  Strasbourg  27.1.1999) 

against  Corruption 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Danish Initiative 

In  July  2002  Denmark  presented  an  Initiative  for  a  Framework  Directive10,  following  the 
adoption of which, the Joint Action would be repealed.  

The  Initiative  set  a  broader  context  than  previously  by  including  a  specific  reference  to  the 
threat  which  corruption  posed  to  "a  law-abiding  society"  as  well  as  its  distortion  of 
"competition" and impeding of "sound economic development" (Paragraph 7, Preamble). The 
Initiative stated that the aim of the Framework Decision was  

"…in  particular  to  ensure  that  both  active  and  passive  corruption  in  the  private  sector  is  a 
criminal  offence  in  all  Member  States,  that  legal  persons  may  also  be  held  responsible  for 
such offences, and that the offences incur effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties." 
(Paragraph 8, Preamble). 

Adoption of the Framework Decision 

As recorded in the minutes of the adopting Council meeting1, three Member States (Germany, 
Ireland  and  Italy)  entered  statements  in  the  minutes.  Ireland  declared  that  the  definition  of 
"breach of duty" (Article 1) which refers to "disloyal behaviour" did not encompass "whistle-
blowing activities". Germany declared that the term "in course of business activities" (Article 
2(1)) be interpreted in the sense that reference is made to activities in relation to the purchase 
of  goods  or  commercial  services.  Both  Germany  and  Italy  declared  a  limit  on  the  scope  of 
Article  2(1)  to  conduct  which  involves,  or  could  involve,  a  distortion  of  competition  in 
relation to the purchase of goods or commercial services (Article 2(3)). 

2. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT AND METHOD OF EVALUATION 

Council  Framework  Decisions  are  binding  upon  the  Member  States  as  to  the  result  to  be 
achieved, but leave to national authorities the choice of form and methods. They do not entail 
direct effect. 

As  the  Commission  has  no  authority  under  the  Third  Pillar  to  initiate  an  infringement 
procedure against a Member State, the nature and purpose of this report is limited to a factual 
evaluation of the implementation measures taken. 

The  Report  concentrates  on  Articles  1  to  7  (with  a  brief  reference  to  Article  10  where 
relevant), and records the Declarations made by Member States under Articles 2 and 7. It does 
not discuss Articles 8, 9 nor 11 as these provisions do not require implementation. 

The  evaluation  criteria  adopted  by  the  Commission  for  this  Report  are  the  general  criteria 
adopted  in  200111  to  evaluate  the  implementation  of  framework  decisions  (practical 
effectiveness, clarity and legal certainty, full application and compliance with the time limit 
for  transposition).  Secondly,  criteria  specific  to  this  Framework  Decision  are  also  used,  and 
further  details  are  provided  in  the  context  of  the  analysis  of  the  individual  Articles  which 
follows. 

10 

11 

Initiative of the Kingdom of Denmark with a view to the adoption of Council Framework Decision on 
combating corruption in the private sector (2002/C 184/04). 
COM(2001) 771, 13.12.2001, point 1.2.2 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Article 9(1), Framework Decision required Member States to take the necessary measures to 
comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  Framework  Decision  before  22  July  2005.  Article  9  (2) 
required them to transmit to the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission the 
text  of  the  provisions  transposing  into  national  law  the  obligations  imposed  on  them  under 
this Framework Decision. 

Two  Member  States  (NL,  FI)  issued  their  responses  and  supplied  their  legislation  to  the 
Commission before the due date. A further 21 have subsequently responded, of which Czech 
Republic supplied its draft legislation (except Articles 5 and 6), while Greece and Spain stated 
that they had legislation under preparation but without supplying any text to date. Cyprus and 
Malta have not responded to date.  

Many Member States provided some form of cover note in which they drew attention to any 
Declarations they wished to make, others used the opportunity of supplying a cover note and 
concordance table in which they explained the general and particular approach taken in their 
legislation, supported by relevant legislative references. As regards the obligation to transmit 
the text of their transposing provisions, Denmark did not provide any text to support what was 
nevertheless  a  very  detailed  commentary,  while  a  number  of  other  Member  States  made 
partial  omissions.  These  are  indicated  in  more  detail  when  the  relevant  measures  are 
discussed.  

The Report therefore  provides  an  analysis  of the transposition  commentaries  and legislation 
provided by 20 Member States, and some comments on the draft legislation submitted by the 
Czech Republic. 

Article 1 - Definitions 

Few Member States gave even a partial response to this Article. Some other Member States 
expressed the view that it was unnecessary to respond to it. However, the Commission's view 
is  that  information  on  the  application  of  these  definitions  in  national  legislation  would  be 
extremely  useful  in  order  to  have  clarity  on  how  these  concepts  are  handled  in  national 
legislation.  In  the  absence  of  such  information,  it  is  not  possible  for  the  Commission  to  be 
certain that the Framework Decision has been correctly transposed – for example, information 
on the definition of a "legal person" is essential in relation to analysing the transposition of 
Article 5. 

Article 2 – Active and passive corruption in the private sector  

Article  2  is  the  key  Article  of  the  2003  Framework  Decision.  It  not  only  combines  the 
definitions  and  offences  relating  to  active  and  passive  corruption  respectively,  but  broadens 
the scope of the offences beyond the internal market, unless a Member State explicitly makes 
a Declaration retaining such a limit. 

Article  2  proved  highly  problematic  for  most  of  the  20  Member  States.  Only  two  (BE,  UK 
correctly transposed all its elements. However, with the exception of one requirement within 
Article 2(1), PT and IE otherwise did so too. While it can be said that Member States have to 
some  extent  criminalised  active  and  passive  corruption  in  the  private  sector,  there  are  a 
number  of  issues  which  States  failed  to  address  adequately.  This  is  a  grave  concern,  as  the 
omitted elements mean that the legislation could be easily circumvented. Member States are 
requested to address these gaps as a matter of urgency. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
The  requirement  on  Member  States  to  establish  criminal  offences  of  active  and  passive 
corruption in relation to business activities in the private sector is set out in Article 2 (1). 
To facilitate analysis, legislation was considered against a framework of the 7 elements of the 
description  under  Article  2  1  (a)  (active  corruption)  and  2  1  (b)  (passive  corruption) 
respectively.  As  most  Member  States'  legislation  was  very  similar  for  both,  the  following 
comments focus only on the active corruption offence (Article 2 1 (a)). 

- "promising, offering or giving" 

Eleven  Member  States  met  this  requirement,  but  7  (EE,  HU,  IT,  NL,  PL,  PT,  SK)  omitted 
"offering", LU omitted "giving" and LV omitted "promising". 

- "directly or through an intermediary" 

All  20  Member  States  provide  for  direct  corruption.  But  8  Member  States  either  omitted 
intermediaries  (AT,  DE,  FI,  IT,  NL,  PL,  SE,  SI)  or  changed  the  focus  of  the  offence  to 
provide for the liability of the intermediary (EE) instead of the person using the intermediary. 

- "a person who in any capacity directs or works" 

Certain  Member  States  did  not  address  the  full  scope  of  "directs"  (AT,  DE,  LV,  SE)  or 
"works" (IT, LU, LV, PL) while EE did not provide information on this point. 

- "private-sector entity" 

This was clearly addressed by 18 Member States, but EE did not supply information while LU 
did not supply a definition of the term "legal entity". 

- "an undue advantage of any kind" 

Fourteen Member States meet this requirement. But 5 (DE, EE, FI, LT, NL) do not address 
intangible benefits. IE indicated that it was preparing legislation on this point. 

-"for that person or for a third party" 

While  FR  and  EE  did  not  provide  information  on  this  point,  16  Member  States  criminalise 
giving etc an advantage for a person or for a third party, but IT and NL omit the element of 
the third party from their legislation. 

- "perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" 

Thirteen Member States meet this requirement. Four Member States (HU, PL, SE, SI) did not 
address  "refrain",  while  DE  and  LT  do  not  address  the  element  "in  breach  of  that  person's 
duties". EE did not provide information on this point. 

With regard to corruption involving non-profit entities (Article 2 (2)), there was often a lack 
of information on which to base any analysis. Where possible, if relevant material could  be 
found  elsewhere,  eg  in  relation  to  Article  5  on  liability  of  legal  persons,  this  was  used. 
Nevertheless, the situation in 10 Member States (AT, FI, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, PL, SE, SK) 
remains unclear. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
The Framework Decision provides that a Member State may limit the scope of the criminal 
offences  of  active  and  passive  corruption  to  conduct  involving  a  distortion  of  competition 
(Article  2  (3)),  but  requires  that  it  provide  a  Declaration  to  this  effect.  Article  2  (4)  of  the 
Framework  Decision  not  only  provides  for  the  communication  of  such  a  Declaration  to  the 
Council  when  it  is  adopted,  but  limits  their  validity  to  five  years  from  22  July  2005,  while 
Article 2 (5) requires the Council, before that deadline expires, to review whether or not such 
Declaration(s)  may  be  renewed.  Where  Member  States  had  lodged  Declarations  (Article  2 
(3)), either formally at Council or by letter with their transposition material, these were taken 
into  account.  Such  Declarations  were  lodged  by  DE,  IT  and  PL.  Whether  or  not  these 
Declarations  may  be  renewed  is  a  matter  for  the  Council  to  consider  before  22  July  2010 
(Article  2  (5)).  A  Declaration  was  also  lodged  by  AT,  to  the  effect  that  it  availed  of  the 
exception  clause  under  Article  2  (3)  in  respect  of  any  aspect  of  Article  2  which  it  had  not 
transposed. In the Commission's view, AT's approach goes beyond the scope of Article 2(3), 
and AT is invited to reconsider its position.  

Article 3 – Instigation, aiding and abetting 

This Article focuses on secondary participation in corruption through instigation, aiding and 
abetting. It does not address attempted offences. 

The overall level of transposition was very high – 18 Member States (AT, BE, DK, EE, FI, 
DE, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, SE, SK, SL), met the requirements of Article 3 as 
did the UK (except Scotland).  

Article 4 – Penalties and other sanctions 

In  addition  to  requiring,  at  Article  4  (1),  that  offences  should  be  punishable  by  criminal 
penalties which are "effective, proportionate and dissuasive", Article 4 (2) requires Member 
States  to  have  in  place  a  "minimum-maximum"  range  of  at  least  one  and  three  years 
imprisonment  as  a  penalty  for  the  offences  of  active  and  passive  corruption,  and  omits  any 
reference  to  the  provision  of  other  kinds  of  penalties  for  minor  cases  of  active  or  passive 
corruption. Article 4 (3) is innovative in that it sets out a requirement that Member States, in 
accordance with their constitutional rules and principles, provide in certain circumstances for 
the  temporary  prohibition  of  natural  persons  from  carrying  on  that  particular  or  comparable 
business activity in a similar position or capacity. 

It is noted that a number of Member States, in the information they provided for Article 4 (1), 
overlooked the penalties provided under Article 3. Where possible, these were inserted on the 
basis of information supplied for Article 3 itself. 

Eleven Member States (DK, EE, FI, DE, IE, IT, LT, LU, NL, PL, SE) have fully transposed 
Article 4. 

It  is  noted  that  AT  provides  for  a  maximum  period  of  imprisonment  which  is  less  than  the 
minimum of the range provided under Article 4.2 Framework Decision. 

The majority of Member States met the requirements of Article 4 (3). 

Article 5 – Liability of legal persons 

The issue of legal persons' liability remains a difficult one for certain Member States. Three 
Member  States  (AT,  IT,  SK)  ,  either  have  yet  to  complete  legislation  on  this  topic  or  such 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
legislation  has  been  rejected  by  Parliament,  in  the  case  of  the  Slovak  Republic,  and  hence 
have failed to transpose both Articles 5 and 6, Framework Decision. Furthermore, Ireland is 
preparing legislation to specifically address Article 5(2). 

Only 5 Member States (LT, LU, NL, PL, SI) have fully transposed Article 5. As many as 13 
transposed  Article  5(1),  with  the  results  somewhat  lower  in  respect  of  Article  5(2),  (6  MS) 
and Article 5(3), (10 MS). The particular difficulty faced  here in the analysis was a lack of 
information from the Member States, which was especially evident in relation to Articles 5(2) 
and 5(3). Given that, as previously mentioned, 3 Member States have yet to enact legislation 
to  address  Article  5,  it  is  considered  that  Article  5  warrants  detailed  scrutiny  in  any 
subsequent reports. 

Article 6 – Penalties for legal persons 

As mentioned in relation to Article 5, 3 Member States (AT, IT, SK) do not have legislation 
in  place  to  transpose  either  Articles  5  or  6.  Luxembourg  has  indicated  that  it  is  preparing 
legislation to provide for the possibility of fines for legal persons. 

Because  both  Articles  5  and  6  deal  with  legal  persons,  the  difficulties  and  gaps  in  Member 
States'  legislation,  or  in  the  information  they  supplied  for  Article  5  impacted  on  the  rate  of 
transposition of Article 6. Five Member States (DK, LT, NL, PL, SI) transposed the Article 
fully. Further information is required from a number of Member States in order to assess their 
position. 

In those instances where Member States (BE,  FI) provided the  level of penalty only in pre-
euro currency, they are invited to forward the penalty levels in euro for assessment.  

Article 7 – Jurisdiction 

While  the  Commission  recognises  that  jurisdiction  measures  are  a  standard  feature  of 
Framework  Decisions,  nevertheless  it  urges  Member  States  to  provide  the  same  level  of 
information when responding to such Articles as they do in relation to those Articles which 
are  subject-specific.  Due  to  the  unevenness  of  Member  States'  replies  in  relation  to  this 
Article, only an incomplete picture of its transposition could be prepared by the Commission 
at this stage. Member States are invited to provide outstanding information in due course, to 
assist in the preparation of any subsequent Report. 

This  lack  of  information  contributed  to  the  low  level  of  transposition  –  on  the  basis  of  the 
information  supplied,  only  3  Member  States  (DK,  DE,  UK)  can  be  said  to  have  transposed 
this Article. The second main contributory factor was a lack of information specifically with 
regard  to  offences  occurring  in  part  on  the  territory  of  a  Member  State  (Article  7  (1)  (a) 
refers).  It  is  of  course  possible  that  Member  States'  legislation  makes  the  assumption  that  a 
reference  to  jurisdiction  over  offences  occurring  on  the  territory  includes  this  element,  but 
without  an  explicit  reference  either  in  the  text  of  the  legislation  or  in  the  accompanying 
commentary,  this  assumption  could  not  be  made  in  the  analysis.  Finally,  it  was  clear  that 
many Member States have not addressed in their legislation the option at Article 7 (1) (c) of 
taking jurisdiction over offences committed for the benefit of a legal person that has its head 
office in its territory and have either furnished a Declaration opting out or have not provided 
information at all within their reply. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Article 10 - Territorial Application 

With reference to Article 10, the UK stated that Gibraltar "intends to transpose this measure 
as  soon  as  legislative  time  allows"  but  has  not  to  date  supplied  the  text  of  the  enacted 
legislation.  

Legislation in progress – Czech Republic 

The  Czech  Republic  provided  a  covering  letter  and  a  comparative  table  which  includes  the 
text of the relevant sections of its draft criminal code. Apart from Articles 5 and 6, it informed 
the  Commission  that  its  draft  legislation  was  compatible  with  the  provisions  of  the 
Framework  Decision.  However,  it  has  not  subsequently  informed  the  Commission  of  the 
progress  with  this  draft  legislation  and  accordingly,  as  it  would  appear  that  the  text  is  still 
subject  to  amendment  within  the  context  of  the  parliamentary  procedures,  the  Commission 
only offers its general comments in the Annex to this Report. 

3. NEXT STEPS FOR THE FRAMEWORK DECISION 

The Commission takes this opportunity to draw attention to two issues which will need to be 
addressed in the coming years: 

- 

'Reformattage' 

As  indicated  by  the  Commission  in  its  Communication  "On  the  Implications  of  the  Court's 
Judgement of 13 September 2005" (Case C-176/03 Commission v Council) (COM(2005) 583 
final/2  Brussels  24.11.2005),  the  Council  Framework  Decision  on  Combating  Corruption  in 
the  Private  Sector  is  one  of  the  instruments  which  is  affected  by  this  judgement.  The 
judgement  would  indicate  that  the  legal  base  of  the  Council  Framework  Decision  requires 
amendment.  The  implications  for  the  Council  Framework  Decision,  and  the  approach  to  be 
adopted, will be addressed at a future date. 

- 

Review of Article 2 by Council, as provided by Article 2(5) 

By virtue of Article 2 (4), Member States' Declarations made under Article 2 (3), are due to 
expire on 21 July 2010. By that date, the Council is required by Article 2 (5) to review Article 
2 "with a view to considering whether it shall be possible to renew Declarations made under 
paragraph 3." Four Member States (AT, DE, IT, PL) have made Declarations. 

4. CONCLUSIONS 

It should be noted that, by their nature, framework decisions12 are binding upon the Member 
States as to the results to be achieved, but it is a matter for the national authorities to choose 
the form and method of implementation. Framework decisions do not entail direct effect. As 
the Commission has no authority under the Third Pillar to initiate an infringement procedure 
against a Member State, the nature and purpose of this report is limited to a factual evaluation 
of the transposition measures taken by 23 Member States (effectively twenty for the reasons 
given earlier). 

12 

Article 34 (2)(b), Treaty on European Union 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Summary table showing extent of transposition by 20 Member States  

I = no/insufficient information N = not transposed P = partly transposed T = fully transposed 

Article 
1 

Article 
2 

Article 3 

Article 
4 

Article 
5 

Article 
6 

Article 

7 (1) 

MS 

AT 

BE 

DE 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

IE 

IT 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

I 

T 

T 

P 

I 

T 

T 

T 

T 

P 

P 

T 

N 

N 

P 

I 

P 

P 

P 

P 

P 

I 

P 

P 

T 

P 

P 

I 

P 

P 

I 

P 

T 

T 

I 

I 

I 

P 

P 

I (LP) 

P 

I (BofD) 

T (LP) 

T 

T 
(BofD) 

1 (LP) 

P 

I (BofD) 

T (LP) 

P 

I (BofD) 

T (LP) 

P 

T 
(BofD) 

T (LP) 

P 

I (BofD) 

I (LP) 

P 

T 
(BofD) 

I (BofD) 

T (LP) 

P 

T 
(BofD) 

I (LP) 

P 

T 

T 

N 

N 

P 

I (BofD) 

HU 

T (LP) 

P 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
LT 

T (LP) 

P 

T 

T 

T 

T 

I 

LU 

LV 

NL 

T 
(BofD) 

I (LP) 

P 

I (BofD) 

I (LP) 

P 

I (BofD) 

I (LP) 

P 

T 
(BofD) 

T 

T 

T 

T 

P 

T 

T 

P 

T 

P 

P 

T 

P 

P 

P 

PL 

T (LP) 

P 

T 

T 

T 

T 

P 

T 
(BofD) 

PT 

T (LP) 

P 

T 

P 

P 

P 

P 

SE 

SK 

SI 

T 
(BofD) 

I (LP) 

P 

I (BofD) 

I (LP) 

P 

I (BofD) 

T (LP) 

P 

I (BofD) 

T 

T 

T 

T 

P 

P 

UK 

T (LP) 

T  

I (BofD) 

(England, 

T 
Wales & NI) 

P 

I (Scotland) 

P 

P 

N 

N 

T 

P 

T 

P 

P 

P 

P 

T 

Total 
transpositions 

10 (LP) 

2  

18 

11 

5 

5 

3 

8 
(BofD) 

(LP) = Legal Person BofD = Breach of Duty 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
Concluding Remarks 

It  is  a  source  of  concern  to  the  Commission  that  transposition  of  this  Council  Framework 
Decision is still at an early stage among Member States. The Commission reminds Member 
States  of  the  importance  they  have  attached  to  the  fight  against  private  sector  corruption13. 
Furthermore,  the  Commission  notes  that  this  importance  is  also  reflected  in  the  Council  of 
Europe Criminal Law Convention against Corruption 1999, and in the UN Convention against 
Corruption  2003.  Strong,  comprehensive  legislation  at  national  level  is  the  foundation  for 
effective protection of the private sector against this economic threat. 

The Commission invites all Member States to consider this Report and to take the opportunity 
to  provide  all  further  relevant  information  to  the  Commission  and  Council  Secretariat,  in 
order to complete the fulfilment of their obligations under Article 9, Framework Decision. In 
addition, the Commission encourages those Member States which have signalled that they are 
preparing  relevant  legislation,  to  enact  these  national  measures  as  soon  as  possible  and  to 
provide the texts to the Council Secretariat and to the Commission for analysis. This call is 
particularly made to Greece and Spain, which indicated in 2005 that they were preparing draft 
legislation, but have not provided any further information. Finally, the Commission notes with 
concern that 2 Member States have not replied to date (CY, MT), contrary to Article 9, and 
urges them to furnish the full details of their transposition without further delay. 

The  annexed  staff  working  paper  provides  a  more  detailed  analysis  of  the  Member  States' 
national measures, on which the Commission's analysis is based. 

13 

(paragraph (9) of the Framework Decision Preamble) 

EN 

12 

   EN