Second Report from the Commission - Implementation of the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities’ financial interests and its protocols - Article 10 of the Convention {SEC(2008) 188}
Date: 2008-02-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, corruption, criminal law, financial interests of members, fraud against the EU, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 14.2.2008 
COM(2008) 77 final 

SECOND REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

Implementation of the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities’ 
financial interests and its protocols 

Article 10 of the Convention 

{SEC(2008) 188} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
SECOND REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

Implementation of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ 
financial interests and its protocols 

1. 

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 

On  25  October  2004  the  Commission  adopted  a  report  on  implementation  by 
Member  States  of  the  Convention  on  the  protection  of  the  European  Communities’ 
financial  interests  and  its  protocols.1  That  report  took  stock  of  how  the  EU-15 
Member States had fulfilled the obligations placed on them by the PFI Convention,2 
the 1st Protocol,3 the ECJ Protocol4 and the 2nd Protocol5 (“the PFI instruments”). 

That  first  report  announced  that  the  Commission  intended  to  submit  a  follow-up 
report  on  implementation  in  the  whole  EU  of  now  27  Member  States.  Although 
ratification  is  not  yet  completed,  neither  in  the  EU-15  nor  in  the  Member  States 
which joined the EU on 1 May 2004 or 1 January 2007, the Commission considers 
that,  ten  years  after  signature  of  the  2nd  Protocol  and  three  years  after  the 
enlargement  of  2004,  the  time  has  come  to  take  a  fresh  look  at  the  national 
implementing measures and to consider the impact of the PFI instruments. 

The purpose of this report, and even more so of the accompanying Commission Staff 
Working Paper, is to check the progress made towards the objective of effective and 
equivalent protection of the EC’s financial interests in the EU as a whole. It looks at 
the  state  of  play  with  transposition  of  the  PFI  instruments  in  the  EU-15  Member 
States,  in  the  light  of  the  conclusions  of  the  first  report,  and  also  at  the  legislative 
situation  in  the  other  Member  States,  whether  they  have  ratified  all  the  PFI 
instruments or not. 

2. 

ASSESSMENT  OF  THE  NATIONAL  IMPLEMENTING  MEASURES  IN  THE  MEMBER 
STATES WHICH HAVE RATIFIED THE PFI INSTRUMENTS 

This assessment is limited to the Member States which have ratified the relevant PFI 
instruments and focuses only on those where shortcomings have been identified. 

1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

COM (2004) 709 final, 25.10.2004. 
Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, 
p. 49. 
Protocol  to  the  Convention  on  the  protection  of  the  European  Communities’  financial  interests, 
OJ C 313, 23.10.1996, p. 2. 
Protocol on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European 
Communities  of  the  Convention  on  the  protection  of  the  European  Communities’  financial  interests, 
OJ C 151, 20.5.1997, p. 2. 
Second Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, 
OJ C 221, 19.7.1997, p. 12. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1. 

Criminal offences  

Fraud affecting the EC’s financial interests (Articles 1 and 2 of the PFI Convention) 

As  regards  fraud  affecting  the  EC’s  expenditure,  considerable  progress  has  been 
made  towards  achieving  satisfactory,  if  not  complete,  compliance  since  the  first 
report. However, Belgium, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Austria still ask 
for additional indications of intent not provided for in Article 1(1)(a). In France fraud 
in  the  form  of  non-disclosure  of  information  in  violation  of  a  specific  obligation 
seems  to  be  punished  only  in  exceptional  cases,  while  Hungary  and  Estonia,  as 
regards  misapplication  of  funds,  do  not  cover  all  expenditure.  In  both  cases, 
prosecution is rendered more difficult than the standard laid down in Article 1(1)(a). 

Concerning fraud affecting the EC’s revenue, in Belgium the punishment for certain 
forms of fiscal fraud appears neither proportionate nor dissuasive, with no sufficient 
custodial  sentences.  In  Lithuania  and  Slovenia  revenue-related  fraud  offences  are 
subject  to  minimum  thresholds.  The  Latvian  legislation  asks  for  additional 
indications of intent not provided for in Article 1(1)(b). 

The Commission will collect further information on compliance by Member States as 
regards fraud offences which were initially applicable to national officials and, due to 
the assimilation requirement, need to be extended to Community officials. 

Corruption (Articles 2 to 5 of the 1st Protocol) 

In general, implementation of the provisions on active and passive corruption is well 
advanced. In Germany, however, compliance is only formal and implementation of 
the  assimilation  principle  is  not  satisfactory  in  the  case  of  bribery  for  licit  deeds, 
which is punished only if committed by a German national official respectively. In 
Slovakia  full  compliance  may  depend  on  the  courts’  interpretation  of  the  relevant 
laws. 

Money laundering (Article 2 of the 2nd Protocol) 

Thanks to the Community acts existing in this field, such as Directive 2005/60/EC,6 
implementation  regarding  money  laundering  is  good  overall.  For  the  moment,  de 
facto, fraud affecting the EC’s revenue is missing from the list of predicate offences 
for money laundering in Germany. 

2.2. 

General concepts of criminal law 

Criminal liability of heads of businesses (Article 3 of the PFI Convention) 

The  Commission  notes  that  most  Member  States  show  no  intention  of  scrutinising 
their  national  systems  with  regard  to  the  concept  of  criminal  liability  of  heads  of 
businesses.  The  scope  and  coverage  of  criminal  liability  for  heads  of  businesses 
therefore  remains  unclear  in  Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  Ireland,  France,  Italy, 
Luxembourg, Austria, Slovenia and Sweden, where the general rules on participation 
are taken as an argument that there is no need for specific rules. 

6 

OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 15. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Liability of legal persons (Articles 3 and 4 of the 2nd Protocol) 

Apart  from  Luxembourg  and  Slovakia,  the  Member  States  have  established  the 
liability  of  legal  persons.  Spain  and  Latvia,  however,  fail  to  provide  for  liability  of 
legal persons as a self-standing liability besides that of natural persons. In the cases 
of  Belgium,  Denmark  and  the  UK,  it  is  doubtful  whether  they  provide  for  liability 
where lack of supervision or control made it possible for the offence to be committed 
or where the offence was committed by a subordinate. Recent practice in Germany 
may  give  cause  for  doubts  about  whether  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive 
criminal penalties are applied to punish legal persons. 

Confiscation (Article 5 of the 2nd Protocol) 

Apart  for  Latvia,  which  has  no  provisions  on  seizure,  confiscation  or  removal  of 
instruments of fraud, positive results have been achieved. 

2.3. 

Elements relating to criminal procedure 

Jurisdiction (Article 4 of the PFI Convention and Article 6 of the 1st Protocol) 

All  the  Member  States  generally  provide  for  jurisdiction  based  on  the  territoriality 
principle  for  fraud,  corruption  or  money  laundering.  Some  Member  States  are 
compliant,  because  they  have  exercised  their  right,  under  the  PFI  instruments,  to 
submit  reservations  on  the  jurisdiction  rules.  The  Irish  jurisdiction  rules  on  passive 
personality do not cover passive corruption, while the Latvian and Slovenian rules on 
jurisdiction  over  headquarters  on  their  territories  are  limited  to  persons  residing  in 
the country itself. 

2.4. 

General assessment 

The harmonisation objective of the PFI instruments has still not been fully achieved 
for all 27 Member States, neither formally nor materially. 

The Commission regrets that, due to the lack of ratification by Italy, the 2nd Protocol 
has still not entered into force and that ratification by Member  States  which  joined 
the  EU  on  1  May  2004  has  still  not  been  finalised.  De  facto  the  current  system  of 
protection,  based  on  conventions,  creates  a  multi-speed  situation.  It  results  in  a 
mixture  of  different  legal  situations  in  terms  of  the  binding  effect  of  the  PFI 
instruments  in  the  individual  Member  States’  internal  legal  order.  Formally,  this 
situation does not produce the desired effective and dissuasive penal protection. 

From the point of view of material compliance, the Commission’s analysis concludes 
that five of the Member States which have ratified the PFI instruments now appear to 
have  taken  all  the  measures  needed  to  comply  in  a  satisfactory  way  with  the  PFI 
instruments.  However,  loopholes  in  the  legislation  applicable  within  the  EU  which 
allow  offences  to  go  unpunished  remain  possible.  The  rules  laid  down  in  the  PFI 
instruments cannot be considered separately, since non-implementation of one article 
also  has  knock-on  effects  on  provisions  which,  examined  in  isolation,  seem  to 
comply with the PFI instruments. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
The  need  for  a  Directive  on  criminal-law  protection  of  the  Communities’  financial 
interests7  persists.  The  PFI  instruments  based  on  the  Maastricht  Treaty  are  not  an 
adequate  response  to  the  specific  need  for  criminal-law  protection  of  the  EC’s 
financial interests. Not only do many of the reasons for a proposal for a Directive on 
the  criminal-law  protection  of  the  EC’s  financial  interests  still  apply,  but  also  the 
Commission  will  further  examine  possible  approaches  opened  up  by  the  reform  of 
the EU/EC Treaty. 

3. 

CONCLUSIONS 

3.1. 

General conclusions  

Given  that  formal  compliance  has  not  yet  been  achieved,  the  Commission  urges 
those Member States which, more than ten years after adoption of the last of the PFI 
instruments  and  more  than  three  years  after  accession,  still  have  not  done  so  (the 
Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Poland along with Estonia for the ECJ Protocol 
and Italy for the 2nd Protocol) to ratify all the PFI instruments without delay. 

As concerns material compliance, the failure to achieve the harmonisation objective 
calls for further work towards adoption of a common position in the Council on the 
amended  proposal  for  a  Directive  on 
the 
Communities’  financial  interests  and  for  asking  Member  States  to  reconsider  the 
reservations which they entered when ratifying the PFI instruments.  

the  criminal-law  protection  of 

All  Member  States  are  invited  to  step  up  their  efforts  to  reinforce  their  national 
criminal  legislation  to  protect  the  Communities’  financial  interests,  in  particular 
addressing  the  shortcomings  identified  in  this  report.  Furthermore,  those  Member 
States considered not to have supplied sufficient information are invited to do so. 

At  the  same  time,  a  distinction  must  be  drawn  between  the  EU-15  Member  States, 
which  were  already  covered  by  the  first  report,  and  the  relevant  criminal  law 
provisions of the twelve “new” Member States, ten of which joined the EU on 1 May 
2004 and two on 1 January 2007, since the PFI instruments have entered into force in 
only some of them. 

3.2. 

Follow-up  to  the  recommendations  made  in  the  first  report  for  the  EU-15 
Member States 

The Council, the European Parliament and the Commission have repeatedly invited 
Member  States  to  ratify  the  2nd  Protocol  without  delay.8  In  2006  the  Commission 
addressed  Italy  as  the  only  EU-15  State  that  has  still  not  ratified  the  2nd  Protocol. 
Due  to  its  non-ratification,  Italy  is  indirectly  impeding  completion  of  the  legal 
framework  established  by  the  PFI  instruments,  not  only  as  regards  the  liability  of 

7 
8 

COM (2001) 272 final, 23.5.2001, as amended by COM (2002) 577 final, 16.10.2002. 
For  example:  Resolution  concerning  a  comprehensive  EU  policy  against  corruption,  adopted  by  the 
Justice  and  Home  Affairs  Council  on  14  April  2005  (Council  Doc.  6902/05,  6901/2/05);  European 
Parliament  resolution  on  the  protection  of  the  financial  interests  of  the  Communities  and  the  fight 
against  fraud  (OJ  C  124  E,  15.5.2006,  p.  232,  paragraph  41);  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  –  Protection  of  the  Communities’  financial  interests, 
COM(2006) 378 final. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
legal  persons  but  also  with  regard  to  the  provisions  on  information  exchange.  The 
solidarity and coordination obligations under Article 10 and, especially, Article 280 
of the EC Treaty should provide a means of tackling a situation where one Member 
State  is  holding  back  entry  into  force  of  a  unanimously  agreed  legal  instrument 
across the EU as a whole, if this instrument is a necessary measure contributing to 
aims  also  required  under  the  EC  Treaty.  This  is,  in  particular,  the  case  for  the  2nd 
Protocol, which the Council considered “necessary … to improve the effectiveness of 
protection under criminal law of the European Communities’ financial interests.”9 

The  first  report  asked  Member  States  to  step  up  their  efforts  to  reinforce  their 
national criminal legislation and to treat the objective of full application of the PFI 
instruments  as  a  priority.  The  Commission  believes  that  the  criminal  legislation  of 
in 
the  following  EU-15  Member  States  still  shows  serious  shortcomings 
implementation of the other PFI instruments: 

(1) 

(2) 

Belgium,  since  the  Belgian  Criminal  Law  does  not  fully  comply  with  the 
definition  of  fraud  because  it  requires  the  additional  subjective  element  of 
being  explicitly  aware  (“sciemment”)  that  the  offender  is  not  entitled  to  the 
grant; 

Germany,  because  it  fails  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  assimilation 
principle for corruption offences, since bribery for licit deeds is punished only 
if committed by a German national official but not by European Community 
staff or by an official of another Member State; 

(3) 

France, for not punishing fraud in the form of non-disclosure; 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

Ireland, whose jurisdiction rules on passive personality do not cover passive 
corruption; 

Italy,  where  the  penalties  provided  for  by  the  implementing  provisions  are 
inadequate, because they are neither dissuasive nor proportionate; 

Luxembourg,  because  for  fraud  it  requires  the  additional  subjective  element 
of intentionally (“sciemment”) making a false declaration; 

Austria,  whose  criminal  law  requires,  for  fraud,  proof  of  the  additional 
subjective element of enrichment (“Bereicherungsvorsatz”). 

The  Commission  will  address  these  seven  Member  States  to  gather  their  views  on 
these  alleged  shortcomings.  Should  these  contacts  reveal  diverging  positions  on 
application of the relevant provisions in the PFI instruments, initiation of procedures 
under Article 8 of the PFI Convention may be appropriate. 

9 

Recital  to  the  Council  Act  of  26  July  1995  drawing  up  the  Convention  on  the  protection  of  the 
European Communities’ financial interests, OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 48. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

Recommendations to the Member States which joined the EU on 1 May 2004 or 
on 1 January 2007 

The Member States which joined the EU on 1 May 2004 or on 1 January 2007 are 
invited to meet their commitments under the Accession Treaties. Consequently, the 
Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Poland, together with Estonia in the case of the 
ECJ  Protocol,  should  proceed  as  fast  as  possible  with  accession  to  the  PFI 
instruments to which they have not yet acceded. 

4. 

FURTHER ACTION 

4.1. 

Ensuring ratification 

The  Commission  will  send  a  letter  inviting  Italy  to  finalise  ratification  of  the  2nd 
Protocol. The Commission will also address the Member States which have still not 
ratified  the  PFI  instruments  (the  Czech  Republic,  Hungary,  Malta  and  Poland  plus 
Estonia  in  the  case  of  the  ECJ  Protocol)  should  there  be  any  further  unreasonable 
delay in ratification. 

4.2. 

Ensuring transposition 

The Commission will invite the following Member States to state their positions on 
application  of  provisions  in  the  PFI  instruments  which  they  have  not  yet  fully 
implemented: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria, for not having fully implemented 
Article 1(1)(a) of the PFI Convention; 

Germany,  for  not  having  fully  implemented  Articles  2  and  3  in  conjunction 
with Article 4 of the 1st Protocol; 

Italy, for not having implemented Article 1(1) in conjunction with Article 2 of 
the PFI Convention;  

(4) 

Ireland, for not having implemented Article 6(1)(c) of the 1st Protocol. 

Based on these positions, the Commission will consider proceedings under Article 8 
of the PFI Convention and the 1st Protocol or Article 35(7) of the EU Treaty. 

Furthermore, Member States considered not to have supplied sufficient information 
(Belgium, 
the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Germany,  Ireland,  France,  Italy, 
Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden and the 
UK) are invited to do so with a view to a third report, which the Commission intends 
to submit once the aforementioned procedures have produced practical results. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
ANNEX - Overview of transposition 

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

Nyr = not yet ratified (for the EU-15). Nya = not yet acceded (for the Member States which joined the EU on or after 1 May 2004) 

Member 
State 
(EU-15 
in bold) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(expenditure 
fraud) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(resource 
fraud) 

Articles 2 
and 3 of the 
1st Protocol 
(corruption) 

Article 2 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(money 
laundering) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

Article 3 of 
the 
Convention 
(criminal 
liability of 
heads of 
businesses) 

BE 

N (requires 
specific 
knowledge of 
the offence) 

N (no 
effective, 
proportionate 
and 
dissuasive 
penalties) 

T 

T 

I (lack of 
case law) 

Articles 3 
and 4 of the 
2nd Protocol 
(liability of 
legal 
persons) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

N (liability 
for lack of 
supervision)

Article 5 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(confiscation) 

NOT YET IN 
FORCE 

Article 4 of 
the 
Convention 
(jurisdiction 
for fraud) 

Article 6 of 
the 1st 
Protocol 
(jurisdiction 
for 
corruption) 

T 

T 

N 
(jurisdiction 
for some 
categories of 
participation 
in fraud or 
money 
laundering 
committed 
abroad) 

BG 

T 

T 

T 

Nya (T) 

T 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

T 

T 

EN 

8 

EN 

 
  
Overview of transposition 

Member 
State 
(EU-15 
in bold) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(expenditure 
fraud) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(resource 
fraud) 

Articles 2 
and 3 of the 
1st Protocol 
(corruption) 

Article 2 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(money 
laundering) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

Article 3 of 
the 
Convention 
(criminal 
liability of 
heads of 
businesses) 

CZ 

Nya (N, 
requires 
severely 
distorted 
information) 

Nya (N, 
requires 
severely 
distorted 
information) 

DK 

T 

DE 

P (subsidiary 
offence 
requires 
enrichment) 

T 

T 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (I, lack 
of case law) 

T 

T 

I (lack of 
case law) 

I (lack of 
case law) 

T 

N (no full 
assimilation 
with 
national 
officials) 

N 
(resource 
fraud is de 
facto no 
predicate 
offence) 

Articles 3 
and 4 of the 
2nd Protocol 
(liability of 
legal 
persons) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

Nya (N, no 
provision for 
liability of 
legal 
persons) 

N (liability 
for lack of 
supervision)

Article 5 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(confiscation) 

NOT YET IN 
FORCE 

Article 4 of 
the 
Convention 
(jurisdiction 
for fraud) 

Article 6 of 
the 1st 
Protocol 
(jurisdiction 
for 
corruption) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (I, 
depends on 
declaration) 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

EN 

9 

EN 

 
  
Overview of transposition 

Member 
State 
(EU-15 
in bold) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(expenditure 
fraud) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(resource 
fraud) 

Articles 2 
and 3 of the 
1st Protocol 
(corruption) 

Article 2 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(money 
laundering) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

Article 3 of 
the 
Convention 
(criminal 
liability of 
heads of 
businesses) 

IE 

T 

T 

T 

T 

I (lack of 
case law) 

Articles 3 
and 4 of the 
2nd Protocol 
(liability of 
legal 
persons) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

N (liability 
for lack of 
supervision)

Article 5 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(confiscation) 

NOT YET IN 
FORCE 

Article 4 of 
the 
Convention 
(jurisdiction 
for fraud) 

Article 6 of 
the 1st 
Protocol 
(jurisdiction 
for 
corruption) 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

EE 

N (subsidiary 
offence 
requires 
deception; 
misapplication 
of funds does 
not cover all 
expenditure) 

EL 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

EN 

10 

EN 

N (passive 
personality 
principle 
for active 
corruption 
only) 

P (depends 
on 
application 
of double 
criminality) 

 
  
Overview of transposition 

Member 
State 
(EU-15 
in bold) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(expenditure 
fraud) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(resource 
fraud) 

Articles 2 
and 3 of the 
1st Protocol 
(corruption) 

Article 2 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(money 
laundering) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

Article 3 of 
the 
Convention 
(criminal 
liability of 
heads of 
businesses) 

T 

T 

T 

Articles 3 
and 4 of the 
2nd Protocol 
(liability of 
legal 
persons) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

N 
(subsidiary 
liability of 
legal 
persons) 

Article 5 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(confiscation) 

NOT YET IN 
FORCE 

Article 4 of 
the 
Convention 
(jurisdiction 
for fraud) 

Article 6 of 
the 1st 
Protocol 
(jurisdiction 
for 
corruption) 

T 

T 

T 

I (lack of 
case law) 

Nyr (N, value 
confiscation 
for money 
laundering) 

N 
(additional 
procedural 
barriers) 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

I (lack of 
case law) 

T 

Nyr (T) 

I (lack of 
case law) 

Nyr (T) 

T 

T 

T 

ES 

T 

FR 

IT 

N (no rules 
on non-
disclosure) 

N (no 
effective, 
proportionate 
and 
dissuasive 
penalties; 
requires 
enrichment) 

EN 

11 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 
(EU-15 
in bold) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(expenditure 
fraud) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(resource 
fraud) 

Articles 2 
and 3 of the 
1st Protocol 
(corruption) 

Overview of transposition 

Article 2 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(money 
laundering) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

Article 3 of 
the 
Convention 
(criminal 
liability of 
heads of 
businesses) 

Articles 3 
and 4 of the 
2nd Protocol 
(liability of 
legal 
persons) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

Article 5 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(confiscation) 

NOT YET IN 
FORCE 

Article 4 of 
the 
Convention 
(jurisdiction 
for fraud) 

Article 6 of 
the 1st 
Protocol 
(jurisdiction 
for 
corruption) 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

T 

T 

N (requires 
specific 
knowledge of 
the offence) 

N (requires 
specific 
knowledge of 
the offence) 

N (requires 
specific 
knowledge of 
the offence) 

N (no 
punishment 
for small 
amounts) 

T 

N (requires 
specific 
knowledge of 
the offence) 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

N 
(subsidiary 
liability of 
legal 
persons) 

T 

N (no 
confiscation 
of 
instruments) 

T 

T 

I (lack of 
case law) 

N (no 
liability of 
legal 
persons) 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

N (offender 
has to be a 
resident) 

T 

T 

EN 

12 

EN 

 
  
Overview of transposition 

Member 
State 
(EU-15 
in bold) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(expenditure 
fraud) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(resource 
fraud) 

Articles 2 
and 3 of the 
1st Protocol 
(corruption) 

Article 2 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(money 
laundering) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

Article 3 of 
the 
Convention 
(criminal 
liability of 
heads of 
businesses) 

HU 

Nya (I, 
definition of 
“assistance”) 

Nya (I, 
definition of 
“payments”) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

MT 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (P, 
limited to 
fraud) 

Nya (I, lack 
of case law) 

Articles 3 
and 4 of the 
2nd Protocol 
(liability of 
legal 
persons) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

Nya (N, 
subsidiary 
liability of 
legal 
persons) 

Nya (P, no 
liability for 
fiscal 
offences) 

Article 5 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(confiscation) 

NOT YET IN 
FORCE 

Article 4 of 
the 
Convention 
(jurisdiction 
for fraud) 

Article 6 of 
the 1st 
Protocol 
(jurisdiction 
for 
corruption) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (I, 
depends on 
declaration) 

Nya (I, 
depends on 
declaration) 

NL 

AT 

T 

N (requires 
enrichment) 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

I (lack of 
case law) 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

I (lack of 
case law) 

T 

T 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 
(EU-15 
in bold) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(expenditure 
fraud) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(resource 
fraud) 

Articles 2 
and 3 of the 
1st Protocol 
(corruption) 

Overview of transposition 

Article 2 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(money 
laundering) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

Article 3 of 
the 
Convention 
(criminal 
liability of 
heads of 
businesses) 

Articles 3 
and 4 of the 
2nd Protocol 
(liability of 
legal 
persons) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

Article 5 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(confiscation) 

NOT YET IN 
FORCE 

Article 4 of 
the 
Convention 
(jurisdiction 
for fraud) 

Article 6 of 
the 1st 
Protocol 
(jurisdiction 
for 
corruption) 

PL 

PT 

RO 

Nya (P, 
requires 
enrichment) 

P (definition 
of grants) 

T 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (I, lack 
of case law) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (T) 

Nya (I, 
depends on 
declaration) 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

Nya (T) 

I, lack of 
case law 

Nya (I, lack 
of 
information 
on liability 
for lack of 
supervision) 

Nya (N, lack 
of value 
confiscation 
for money 
laundering) 

T 

T 

T 

T 

SI 

T 

N (no 
punishment 
for small 
amounts) 

T 

T 

I (lack of 
case law) 

T 

T 

T 

N (offender 
has to be a 
resident) 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
Overview of transposition 

Member 
State 
(EU-15 
in bold) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(expenditure 
fraud) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(resource 
fraud) 

Articles 2 
and 3 of the 
1st Protocol 
(corruption) 

Article 2 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(money 
laundering) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

Article 3 of 
the 
Convention 
(criminal 
liability of 
heads of 
businesses) 

SK 

T 

FI 

SE 

P (definition 
of grants) 

P (subsidiary 
offence 
requires 
enrichment) 

T 

T 

T 

I (lack of 
case law) 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

P (limited 
to fraud) 

T 

I (lack of 
case law) 

Article 5 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(confiscation) 

NOT YET IN 
FORCE 

Article 4 of 
the 
Convention 
(jurisdiction 
for fraud) 

Article 6 of 
the 1st 
Protocol 
(jurisdiction 
for 
corruption) 

T 

T 

T 

Articles 3 
and 4 of the 
2nd Protocol 
(liability of 
legal 
persons) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

N (no 
liability of 
legal 
persons) 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

P (depends 
on 
application 
of double 
criminality) 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
Overview of transposition 

Member 
State 
(EU-15 
in bold) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(expenditure 
fraud) 

Article 1 of 
the 
Convention 
(resource 
fraud) 

Articles 2 
and 3 of the 
1st Protocol 
(corruption) 

Article 2 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(money 
laundering) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

Article 3 of 
the 
Convention 
(criminal 
liability of 
heads of 
businesses) 

UK 

T (England & 
Wales and 
Northern 
Ireland) 

T (England & 
Wales and 
Northern 
Ireland) 

T 

T 

T 

Article 5 of 
the 2nd 
Protocol 
(confiscation) 

NOT YET IN 
FORCE 

Article 4 of 
the 
Convention 
(jurisdiction 
for fraud) 

Article 6 of 
the 1st 
Protocol 
(jurisdiction 
for 
corruption) 

T 

T 

T 

Articles 3 
and 4 of the 
2nd Protocol 
(liability of 
legal 
persons) 

NOT YET 
IN FORCE 

N (criminal 
liability for 
lack of 
supervision)

I (Scotland) 

I (Scotland) 

EN 

16 

EN