COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Fighting Corruption in the EU
Date: 2011-06-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, corruption, political cooperation

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 6.6.2011 
COM(2011) 308 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE 

Fighting Corruption in the EU 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE 

Fighting Corruption in the EU 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 
2. 
2.1. 
2.2. 
3. 
3.1. 
3.2. 
3.3. 

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3 
Stronger monitoring of anti-corruption efforts ............................................................ 5 
Current monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.......................................................... 5 
The EU Anti-Corruption Report .................................................................................. 6 
Better implementation of existing anti-corruption instruments ................................... 8 
Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector .. 8 
Other international anti-corruption instruments........................................................... 9 
Cooperation between the EU and the existing international anti-corruption 
instruments ................................................................................................................. 10 
Stronger focus on corruption in EU internal policies................................................. 10 
4. 
Law enforcement, judicial and police cooperation within the EU............................. 10 
4.1. 
4.1.1. 
Judicial and police cooperation.................................................................................. 11 
4.1.2.  Financial investigations and asset recovery ............................................................... 11 
4.1.3.  Protection of whistleblowers...................................................................................... 12 
4.1.4.  Training of law enforcement officials........................................................................ 12 
Public procurement .................................................................................................... 12 
4.2. 
Cohesion policy to support administrative capacity building .................................... 13 
4.3. 
Accounting standards and statutory audit for EU companies .................................... 13 
4.4. 
Preventing and fighting political corruption .............................................................. 14 
4.5. 
Improving statistics .................................................................................................... 14 
4.6. 
Integrity in sport......................................................................................................... 14 
4.7. 
Protecting EU public money against corruption ........................................................ 15 
4.8. 
Stronger focus on corruption in EU external policies................................................ 15 
5. 
Candidate countries, potential candidates and neighbourhood countries .................. 15 
5.1. 
Cooperation and development policies ...................................................................... 16 
5.2. 
Trade policy ............................................................................................................... 17 
5.3. 
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 17 
6. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Four out of five EU citizens regard corruption1 as a serious problem in their Member State2. 
Despite the fact that the European Union over the last decades has contributed significantly to 
opening up Europe and making it more transparent, it is evident that a lot remains to be done. 
It is not acceptable that an estimated 120 billion Euros per year, or one percent of the EU 
GDP3, is lost to corruption. This is certainly not a new problem to the EU, and we will not be 
able to totally eradicate corruption from our societies, but it is telling that the average score of 
the  EU27  in  Transparency  International's  Corruption  Perception  Index  has  improved  only 
modestly over the last ten years4.  

Although the nature and extent of corruption vary, it harms all EU Member States and the 
EU as a whole. It inflicts financial damage by lowering investment levels, hampering the fair 
operation  of  the  internal  market  and  reducing  public  finances.  It  causes  social  harm  as 
organised crime groups use corruption to commit other serious crimes, such as trafficking in 
drugs  and  human  beings.  Moreover,  if  not  addressed,  corruption  can  undermine  trust  in 
democratic institutions and weaken the accountability of political leadership. 

Over the last decade, some efforts have been made at international, EU and national level 
to reduce corruption5. At EU level, the anti-corruption legal framework has developed by the 
adoption of legislation on corruption in the private sector6 and the accession of the EU to the 
United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)7. The Treaty on the Functioning of 
the  European  Union  recognises  that  corruption  is  a  serious  crime  with  a  cross-border 
dimension  which  Member  States  are  not  fully  equipped  to  tackle  on  their  own8.  Anti-
corruption measures have, to some extent, been integrated within a range of EU policies9. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 
8 

9 

to 

the 

add 

total 

as  much 

as  20-25% 

cost  public  procurement 

This Communication uses the broad definition of corruption adopted by the Global Programme against 
Corruption  run  by  the  United  Nations:  'abuse  of  power  for  private  gain',  which  therefore  covers 
corruption in both public and private sectors. 
78 %, according to the 2009 Eurobarometer on corruption. This survey is conducted every two years. 
According to research by Transparency International, 5% of the EU citizens pay a bribe annually, see 
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb.  One  study  suggests  that  corruption 
may 
contracts, 
http://www.nispa.org/files/conferences/2008/papers/200804200047500.Medina_exclusion.pdf. 
The  total  economic  costs  of  corruption  cannot  easily  be  calculated.  The  cited  figure  is  based  on 
estimates  by  specialised  institutions  and  bodies,  such  as  the  International  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
Transparency  International,  UN  Global  Compact,  World  Economic  Forum,  Clean  Business  is  Good 
Business, 2009, which suggest that corruption amounts to 5% of GDP at world level. . 
From 6.23 in 2000 to 6.30 in 2010, out of the maximum 10. In the 2010 Index, although nine Member 
States  were  ranked  amongst  the  20  least  corrupt  countries  in  the  world,  eight  Member  States  were 
ranked below 5. The main findings and tendencies of the Index for the EU have been confirmed by the 
World  Bank's  worldwide  governance  indicators,  i.e.  a  clear  differences  among  individual  Member 
States,  with  nine  EU  Member  States  ranked  as  best  anti-corruption  performers  and  ten  as  worst 
performers. See also http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/worldmap.asp 
The Commission called for such efforts in 2003, COM(2003) 317 final. 
Council  Framework  Decision  2003/568/JHA on  combating  corruption in  the private sector (OJ  L  192, 
31.7.2003, p. 54). 
Council Decision 2008/801/EC (OJ L 287, 29.10.2008, p. 1). 
Article  83(1)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  lists  corruption  among  those 
crimes for which directives providing minimum rules on definition of criminal offences and sanctions 
may  be  established,  since  corruption  often  has  implications  across,  and  beyond,  internal  EU  borders. 
Bribery  across  borders,  but  also  other  forms  of  corruption,  such  as  corruption  in  the  judiciary,  may 
affect competition and investment flows. 
See sections 4 and 5. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
However,  the  implementation  of  the  anti-corruption  legal  framework  remains  uneven 
among EU Member States and unsatisfactory overall. The EU anti-corruption legislation 
is not transposed in all Member States10. Some countries have not ratified the most important 
international  anti-corruption  instruments.  More  importantly,  even  where  anti-corruption 
institutions and legislation are in place its enforcement is often insufficient in practice11. 

This reflects a lack of firm political commitment on the part of leaders and decision-makers 
to combat corruption in all its forms - political corruption, corrupt activities committed by and 
with  organised  crime  groups,  private-to-private  corruption  and  so-called  petty  corruption. 
There is thus an evident need to stimulate political will to fight corruption, and improve the 
coherence of anti-corruption policies and actions taken by Member States. 

That is why the Commission will set up a new mechanism, the EU Anti-Corruption Report, 
to monitor and assess Member States' efforts against corruption, and consequently encourage 
more  political  engagement.  Supported  by  an  expert  group  and  a  network  of  research 
correspondents, and the necessary EU budget, the Report will be managed by the Commission 
and  published  every  two  years,  starting  in  2013.  It  will  give  a  fair  reflection  of  the 
achievements,  vulnerabilities  and  commitments  of  all  Member  States.  It  will  identify  trends 
and weaknesses that need to be addressed, as well as stimulate peer learning and exchange of 
best  practices.  Alongside  this  mechanism,  the  EU  should  participate  in  the  Council  of 
Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO)12. 

The EU should also put stronger focus on corruption in all relevant EU policies – internal 
as  well  as  external.  The  Commission  will  therefore,  in  particular,  propose  modernised  EU 
rules  on  confiscation  of  criminal  assets  in  2011,  a  strategy  to  improve  criminal  financial 
investigations  in  Member  States  in  2012,  and  adopt  in  2011  an  Action  Plan  for  how  to 
improve crime statistics. The Commission will also work with EU agencies such as Europol, 
Eurojust  and  CEPOL,  as  well  as  with  OLAF  to  step  up  judicial  and  police  cooperation  and 
improve  training  of  law  enforcement  officials.  It  will  continue  to  prepare  modernised  EU 
rules  on  procurement  and  on  accounting  standards  and  statutory  audit  for  EU  companies. 
Also, the Commission will adopt a strategy to combat fraud affecting the financial interests of 
the EU in 2011. In parallel, the Commission will put a stronger focus on anti-corruption issues 
within  the  EU  enlargement  process  and  -  together  with  the  High  Representative  -  in  our 
neighbourhood  policy,  as  well  as  make  greater  use  of  conditionality  in  cooperation  and 
development  policies.  Business  sector  initiatives  and  private-public  dialogue  at  EU  level  on 
how to prevent corruption should be further developed.  

This Communication presents the objectives of the EU Anti-Corruption Report and how it 
will  operate  in  practice,  and  explains  how  the  EU  should  place  greater  emphasis  on 
corruption in internal and external policies. It will be complemented by a Commission Anti-
Fraud Strategy. While the former focuses on the enforcement of anti-corruption policies by 
the  Member  States,  the  latter  will  mainly  cover  measures  under  the  responsibility  of  the 
Commission for the protection of EU financial interests. 

10  

11 
12 

The Commission does not have the power to bring legal proceedings against Member States for failure 
to transpose measures adopted under the Third Pillar of the Treaty, prior to the entry into force of the 
TFEU. Such proceedings will be possible from 1 December 2014, pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol No 
36 on Transitional Provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. 
See section 3. 
See section 2.2 and the Report from Commission to the Council on the modalities of EU participation in 
GRECO, COM(2011) 307. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

STRONGER MONITORING OF ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS 

2.1. 

Current monitoring and evaluation mechanisms 

To  date  there  is  no  mechanism  in  place  monitoring  the  existence,  and  assessing  the 
effectiveness, of anti-corruption policies at EU and Member State level in a coherent cross-
cutting  manner13.  At  international  level,  the  main  existing  monitoring  and  evaluation 
mechanisms  are  the  Council  of  Europe  Group  of  States  against  Corruption  (GRECO),  the 
OECD Working Group on Bribery, and the review mechanism of the UN Convention against 
Corruption (UNCAC). Those mechanisms provide an impetus for states parties to implement 
and enforce anti-corruption standards. However, they each have several features limiting their 
potential to address effectively the problems associated with corruption at EU level. 

The  most  inclusive  existing  instrument  relevant  for  the  EU  is  GRECO,  in  as  much  as  all 
Member  States  are  participating.  Through  GRECO,  the  Council  of  Europe  contributes  to 
ensuring  minimum  standards  in  a  pan-European  legal  area.  However,  given  the  limited 
visibility of the intergovernmental GRECO evaluation process and its follow-up mechanism, 
it  has,  so  far,  not  generated  the  necessary  political  will  in  the  Member  States  to  tackle 
corruption  effectively.  Furthermore,  GRECO  monitors  compliance  with  a  spectrum  of  anti-
corruption standards established by the Council of Europe14 and accordingly focuses less on 
specific  areas  of  the  EU  legislation,  such  as  public  procurement.  The  GRECO  system, 
moreover, does not allow for comparative analysis and hence the identification of corruption 
trends  in  the  EU,  nor  does  it  actively  stimulate  the  exchange  of  best  practices  and  peer 
learning. 

The  OECD's  Convention  on  Combating  Bribery  of  Foreign  Officials  in  International 
Business Transactions (Anti-Bribery Convention)15 focuses on the specific issue of bribery 
of  foreign  public  officials  in  international  business  transactions,  and  cannot  be  extended  to 
other  areas  of  importance  for  the  fight  against  corruption  in  the  EU.  The  seventh  annual 
Progress  Report  prepared  by  Transparency  International16  indicated  that  enforcement  of  the 
Anti-Bribery  Convention  has  been  uneven:  active  enforcement  occurred  in  only  four  EU 
Member States and little or no enforcement in 12 EU Member States. In spite of a thorough 
evaluation system in the form of the OECD Working Group on Bribery, political commitment 
to effective implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention has remained insufficient. 

The  UN  Convention  against  Corruption  (UNCAC)  entered  into  force  in  December  2005, 
and the EU joined in September 200817. The Conference of States Parties to UNCAC adopted 

13 

14 

15 
16 
17 

A specific monitoring mechanism applicable to two Member States, the Cooperation and Verification 
Mechanism  (CVM)  for  Romania  and  Bulgaria,  has  existed  since  2006  (Commission  Decisions 
2006/928/EC and 2006/929/EC of 13 December 2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, pp. 56, 58). The CVM 
surfaced as an ad-hoc solution for the outstanding shortcomings found on the eve of EU accession. In 
this context, the Commission carries out verifications against a number of pre-defined benchmarks in 
the  area  of  justice  reforms  and  anti-corruption,  as  well  as,  in  the  case  of  Bulgaria,  the  fight  against 
organised crime.  
Criminal  Law  Convention  on  Corruption  (STE  173,  adopted  on  27  January  1999)  and  its  additional 
Protocol (ETS 191, adopted on 15 May 2003); Civil Law Convention on Corruption (STE 174, adopted 
on  4  November  1999)  and  the  Twenty  Guiding  Principles  against  Corruption  (Council  of  Europe's 
Committee of Ministers' Resolution (97) 24).  
http://www.oecd.org/document/12/0,3343,en_2649_34859_35692940_1_1_1_1,00.html . 
http://www.transparency.org/global_priorities/international_conventions  
Council Decision 2008/801/EC (OJ L 287, 25.9.2008, p. 1). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  terms  of  reference  of  the  Mechanism  for  the  Review  of  Implementation  of  UNCAC  in 
November  2009.  The  EU  supports  the  involvement  of  civil  society  and  transparency  in  the 
findings of the evaluations under the Mechanism. However, several features are likely to limit 
the  potential  of  the  UNCAC  review  mechanism  to  address  problems  associated  with 
corruption at EU level: it is an intergovernmental instrument, the cross-review system is likely 
to leave out policy areas of particular relevance to the EU, it includes states parties which may 
have lower anti-corruption standards than the EU, the review cycles will be of relatively long 
duration, and recommendations to states parties which are not implemented might be followed 
up only a limited number of times. 

2.2. 

The EU Anti-Corruption Report 

Given  the  limitations  of  the  existing  international  monitoring  and  evaluation  mechanisms 
explained  above,  a  specific  EU  monitoring  and  assessment  mechanism,  the  EU  Anti-
Corruption Report, should be established to prompt stronger political will in the Member 
States and enforcement of the existing legal and institutional tools. That mechanism should be 
combined  with  EU  participation  in  GRECO18.  The  EU  Anti-Corruption  Report  will  be 
issued by the Commission every two years, starting in 2013. 

The establishment of the EU Anti-Corruption Report is the Commission's response to the call 
from Member States, in the  Stockholm Programme19, to 'develop indicators, on the basis of 
existing  systems  and  common  criteria,  to  measure  anti-corruption  efforts  within  the  Union', 
and from the European Parliament to monitor anti-corruption efforts in the Member States on 
a regular basis20.  

The  establishment  of  the  EU  Anti-Corruption  Report  starts  from  the  principle  that  although 
there is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution to fighting corruption, corruption is a concern for all EU 
Member  States.  Through  periodical  assessment  and  publication  of  objective  fact-based 
reports,  the  Report  will  create  an  additional  impetus  for  Member  States  to  tackle 
corruption  effectively,  notably  by  implementing  and  enforcing  internationally  agreed  anti-
corruption standards. The mechanism, applicable equally to all Member States, will provide a 
clearer overview of the existence and effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts in the EU, help 
identify  specific  causes  of  corruption,  and  thus  provide  grounds  for  sound  preparation  of 
future EU policy actions. It will moreover act as a 'crisis alert' to mitigate the potential risks 
of deeply-rooted problems which could evolve into a crisis.  

When preparing the EU Anti-Corruption Report the Commission will cooperate with existing 
monitoring  and  evaluation  mechanisms  to  avoid  additional  administrative  burdens  for 
Member  States  and  duplication  of  efforts.  It  will  draw  on  the  minimum  standards  against 
corruption  established  by  existing  international  instruments  such  as  the  Council  of  Europe's 
Criminal  Law  Convention  on  Corruption21,  Civil  Law  Convention  on  Corruption22,  Twenty 

18 

19 

20 

21 
22 

See  Report  from  Commission  to  the  Council  on  the  modalities  of  EU  participation  in  GRECO, 
COM(2011) 307. 
Council document 17024/09, adopted by the European Council on 10/11 December 2009. (OJ C 115, p. 
1).  See  also  the  Resolution  of  the  Council  6902/05,  adopted  on  14.4.2005,  which  called  upon  the 
Commission to also consider the development of a mutual evaluation and monitoring mechanism. 
Written Declaration No 2/2010 on the Union's efforts in combating corruption, adopted by the European 
Parliament on 18 May 2010. 
SET 173, of 27.1.1999. 
SET 174, 4.11.1999. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
guiding  principles  for  the  fight  against  corruption23,  the  UNCAC24  and  the  OECD  Anti-
Bribery Convention25. 

Given that almost all forms of corruption may have cross-border implications, the Report will 
not  be  limited  to  an  exhaustive  list  of  priority  areas.  Each  EU  Anti-Corruption  Report  will 
however focus on a number of cross-cutting issues of particular relevance at EU level, as 
well  as  selected  issues  specific  to  each  Member  State.  These  will  be  assessed  against  a 
number  of  indicators,  based  on  the  already  existing  standards  in  the  respective  fields  and 
some  newly  developed  in  the  process  of  preparing  the  Report.  New  indicators  will  be 
developed where relevant standards are not yet laid down in an existing instrument or where 
higher standards are required at EU level. In the selection of existing and the development of 
new  indicators,  the  Commission  will  consult  competent  anti-corruption  authorities  in  the 
Member  States.  Indicators  may  include:  perceptions  of  corruption,  respondents’  behaviour 
linked  to  corrupt  activities,  and  criminal  justice  statistics,  including  on  seizures  and 
confiscations  of  the  proceeds  of  corruption-related  crime.  The  EU  Anti-Corruption  Report 
will  include  a  quantitative  assessment  of  those  indicators  and  a  qualitative  analysis  of 
corruption trends and results.  

The Anti-Corruption Report will comprise:  

•  A thematic section, highlighting specific aspects of the fight against corruption in the EU 
based  on  research  and  including  thematic  case  studies,  examples  of  best  practices  and 
recommendations. 

•  Country analyses, including tailor-made recommendations directed to individual Member 
States,  based  on  the  results  of  existing  monitoring  mechanisms  and  reviews  of  available 
evidence from relevant sources. This section may be accompanied by recommendations for 
appropriate action at EU level.  

•  Trends  at  EU  level,  including  the  results  of  a  Eurobarometer  survey  on  corruption 
conducted every two years, measuring perception of corruption in various areas among EU 
citizens,  as  well  as  other  relevant  sources  of  information  on  the  experiences  with 
corruption at EU level. 

In drawing up the Report, the Commission will rely on a variety of sources of information, 
including existing monitoring mechanisms (GRECO, OECD, UNCAC), independent experts, 
research  findings,  Commission  services  and  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF), 
Member  States,  EU  agencies  such  as  Europol  and  Eurojust,  the  European  Anti-Corruption 
Network, Eurobarometer surveys and civil society26. 

The EU Anti-Corruption Report will be managed by the Commission assisted by: 

•  An  expert  group  advising  on:  (1)  establishing  indicators,  (2)  assessing  Member  States' 
performance,  (3)  identifying  best  practices,  (4)  identifying  EU  trends,  (5)  making 
recommendations, and (6) proposing new EU measures where appropriate. The group will 
be set up by the Commission, following an open call procedure. The selected experts may 
come from a wide range of backgrounds (law enforcement, prevention of corruption, civil 

23 
24 
25 
26 

Council of Europe Committee of Ministers' Resolution (97) 24. 
UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003. 
Adopted by the Negotiating Conference on 21 November 1997. 
Assessments carried out by civil society of relevance will be considered. This may include the on-going 
Transparency International study on the National Integrity Systems in the EU. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
society, research etc.),  must enjoy undisputed anti-corruption expertise, a high reputation 
for integrity and commit to act in their personal professional capacity. 

•  A network of local research correspondents set up by the Commission and consisting of 
representatives of civil society and academia, who will collect relevant information in each 
Member State to feed and complement the work of the expert group. 

Directly linked to the EU Anti-Corruption Report, the development of an experience sharing 
programme may be considered to help Member States, local NGOs and other stakeholders to 
identify  shortcomings  in  anti-corruption  policies  and  best  practices,  raise  awareness  or 
provide training. 

The  Commission  will  bear  all  expenses  associated  with  the  EU  Anti-Corruption  Report, 
including those of the independent expert group, the network of research correspondents and, 
if set up, the experience sharing programme. 

EU participation in GRECO, although not fully responding to the EU's needs for periodic 
reporting  on  anti-corruption  efforts  across  the  EU,  would  create  synergies  between  the  two 
mechanisms27. GRECO could, in particular, provide input to the EU monitoring mechanism in 
the form of comparative analyses of the existing GRECO evaluation and compliance reports 
on  the  EU  Member  States,  and  indication  of  key  outstanding  recommendations  requiring 
additional follow-up.  

In the light of the above, the Commission is setting up an EU anti-corruption reporting 
mechanism to periodically assess the Member States' efforts in fighting corruption and 
will  request  the  authorisation  of  the  Council  to  negotiate  EU  participation  in  GRECO 
with  the  Council  of  Europe.  The  Commission  will  consider  in  the  medium  and  long 
term, based on the findings of the EU Anti-Corruption Report, the need for additional 
EU  policy  initiatives,  including  the  approximation  of  criminal  law  in  the  field  of 
corruption.  

3. 

BETTER IMPLEMENTATION OF EXISTING ANTI-CORRUPTION INSTRUMENTS 

A  number  of  anti-corruption  legal  instruments  are  already  in  place  at  EU,  European  and 
international level. This includes the EU Convention on the fight against corruption involving 
officials  of  the  European  Communities  or  officials  of  the  EU  Member  States  which  entered 
into  force  on  28  September  200528.  With  the  exception  of  that  Convention,  the  existing 
instruments  have,  however,  not  yet  been  ratified  and  transposed  into  the  law  of  all  EU 
Member States. To address corruption effectively, Member States should, as a minimum, take 
steps to complete the process of ratification and transposition. 

3.1. 

Framework  Decision  2003/568/JHA  on  combating  corruption  in  the  private 
sector 

Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector29, adopted 
in July 2003, aims to criminalise both active and passive bribery, establishing more detailed 
rules  on  the  liability  of  legal  persons  and  deterrent  sanctions.  The  first  implementation 

27 

28  
29 

See  the  Report  from  Commission  to  the  Council  on  the  modalities  of  EU  participation  in  GRECO, 
COM(2011) 307. 
OJ C 195, 25.06.1997, p. 2-11. 
OJ L 192, 31.7.2003, p. 54. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
report30  issued  in  2007  showed  that  many  Member  States  had  done  little  to  apply  it. 
Shortcomings were found in the criminalisation of all elements of active and passive bribery 
and  the  provisions  on  the  liability  of  legal  persons.  The  second  implementation  report 
accompanying  this  Communication  shows  that  several  Member  States  have  still  not 
transposed  the  most  detailed  provisions  on  criminalisation  of  all  elements  of  active  and 
passive  bribery31.  Moreover,  the  liability  of  legal  persons  continues  to  be  regulated  in  an 
uneven manner at national level.  

The  Commission  urges  the  Member  States  to  fully  transpose  all  provisions  of 
Framework  Decision  2003/568/JHA  without  delay  and  to  ensure  that  it  is  effectively 
implemented.  Depending  on  progress,  the  Commission  will  consider  proposing  a  Directive 
replacing the Framework Decision. 

In this context, the Commission welcomes the adoption by certain Member States of stricter 
rules  to  prevent  private  sector  corruption  and  reinforced  corporate  liability  for  corruption 
offences.  The  Commission  intends  to  support  the  public-private  dialogue  and  the 
exchange  of  best  practices  in  this  area.  Private  undertakings  are  encouraged  to  develop  and 
implement  clear  common  standard  rules  for  their  respective  fields  on  accounting,  internal 
audit, codes of conduct and protection of whistleblowers. 

3.2. 

Other international anti-corruption instruments 

Several  EU  Member  States  have  ratified  all  or  most  of  the  existing  international  anti-
corruption instruments. However, three EU Member States32 have not ratified the Council of 
Europe's  Criminal  Law  Convention  on  Corruption33,  twelve  have  not  ratified  its 
additional  Protocol34  and  seven  have  not  ratified35  the  Civil  Law  Convention  on 
Corruption36.  Three  Member  States  have  not  yet  ratified  the  UNCAC37.  Five  EU  Member 
States38 have not ratified the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.  

The Commission urges Member States that have not ratified those instruments to do so 
without  delay,  taking  into  account  where  appropriate  the  exclusive  external  competence  of 
the  Union,  and  to  fully  implement  them.  The  Commission  requests  the  Member  States  to 
notify  the  Commission  without  delay  of  the  steps  they  have  taken  with  a  view  to  ratifying 
these  instruments  and  any  reasons  for  non-ratification.  In  this  context,  ratification  and 
effective enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention by all EU Member States 
is of particular importance. The Commission will analyse possible difficulties encountered 
by  non-OECD  EU  Member  States  in  the  ratification  process,  as  well  as  deficiencies  in 
implementation and enforcement. 

30 
31 

32 
33 
34 

35 
36 
37 
38 

COM(2007) 328 final. 
COM(2011)  309  final.  The  Report  found  that  only  9  Member  States  (i.e.  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech 
Republic, France, Ireland, Cyprus, Portugal, Finland and UK) have correctly transposed all elements of 
the offence as laid down in Article 2 of the Framework Decision. 
Austria, Germany, Italy. 
SET 173, 27.1.1999. 
Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Hungary,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Poland, 
Portugal, Spain. 
Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and the United Kingdom. 
SET 174, 4.11.1999. 
The Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland.  
Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Romania.  These  Member  States  are  not  members  of  the  OECD. 
Bulgaria is the only Member State non-member of the OECD which has adopted this Convention. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

Cooperation  between  the  EU  and  the  existing  international  anti-corruption 
instruments 

The  Stockholm  Programme  calls  for  increased  coordination  between  Member  States  in  the 
framework of UNCAC, GRECO and OECD work. To that end, the Commission will act, in 
particular, in the following areas. 

As regards UNCAC, the Convention contains a legal obligation to carry out self-assessments. 
In  the  case  of  the  EU,  that  process  is  complex  as  it  involves  cooperation  between  all  EU 
institutions,  as  well  as  with  Member  States  in  the  matters  falling  under  shared  competence. 
The  Commission  has  however  initiated  the  process39  and  is  analysing  the  impact  of  the 
changes  brought  by  the  Lisbon  Treaty  on  the  scope  of  the  obligations  of  the  EU  within 
UNCAC.  Once  that  analysis  is  completed,  the  modalities  of  participation  in  the  review 
mechanism, including the appointment of experts, will be determined. 

The Commission will enhance cooperation with the OECD, possibly through the conclusion 
of a Memorandum of Understanding. The findings of the OECD's Working Group on Bribery 
will be used as input for the EU Anti-Corruption Report. 

The Commission has analysed the possible modalities for the EU's participation in GRECO 
and  will  initiate,  within  the  limits  of  EU  competence,  the  necessary  procedures  in  this 
regard40. Member States should support the EU's application to participate in GRECO 
within the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.  

The Commission also supports the anti-corruption efforts made within the context of the G-20 
and will contribute to the implementation of the G-20 anti-corruption action plan endorsed at 
the Seoul Summit in November 201041. 

4. 

STRONGER FOCUS ON CORRUPTION IN EU INTERNAL POLICIES  

In  addition  to  stronger  monitoring  and  implementation  of  existing  legal  instruments,  anti-
corruption considerations should, as part of a comprehensive approach, be integrated into all 
relevant  EU  policies  –  internal  as  well  as  external.  A  stronger  focus  should  be  put  on 
corruption, in particular, in the following policy areas. 

4.1. 

Law enforcement, judicial and police cooperation within the EU 

Member States should take all necessary steps to ensure the effective detection, prosecution 
and  a  stable  track  record  of  dissuasive  penalties  and  recovery  of  criminally  acquired 
assets  in  corruption  cases.  In  this  context,  judicial  and  police  cooperation  between  EU 
Member  States,  financial  investigations,  training  of  law  enforcement  personnel,  and  the 
protection of whistleblowers is of particular importance. 

39 

40 

41 

OLAF has started with a systematic analysis of the corruption cases in order to identify the threats and 
vulnerabilities the EU budget is exposed to. 
See  the  Report  from  Commission  to  the  Council  on  the  modalities  of  EU  participation  in  GRECO, 
COM(2011) 307. 
Annex III of the G-20 Seoul Summit Leaders’ Declaration, 11-12 November 2010. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.1.1. 

Judicial and police cooperation 

Under its 2010-2014 strategy, Europol is committed to providing increased support for law 
enforcement operations and function as the EU  criminal information hub and  EU centre for 
law enforcement expertise. The Commission urges Europol to step up its efforts to combat 
corruption as a facilitator for organised crime activity. This should include the production of 
regular threat assessments. 

Since 2004, Eurojust has been involved in a slightly increasing number of corruption cases. 
Although in 2010 these cases represented only 2% of its total workload, the growing number 
of Member States involved attests to an increasing need for judicial cooperation in corruption 
cases  with  a  cross-border  dimension.  The  Commission  urges  Eurojust  to  strengthen  its 
efforts  to  facilitate  the  exchange  of  information  among  Member  States'  authorities  on 
corruption cases with cross-border implications.  

Finally,  since  2008  the  EU  contact-point  network  against  corruption  (EACN)42  has 
brought  together  Member  States'  anti-corruption  authorities,  as  well  as  the  Commission, 
OLAF, Europol and Eurojust. The EACN is managed by the Austrian-led network European 
Partners against Corruption (EPAC). The Commission will work with the EACN towards 
more concrete deliverables, stronger focus on operational issues of relevance for corruption 
investigators, and a clearer delimitation of the respective roles of EPAC and the EACN. The 
Commission considers preparing a proposal to modify the Council Decision establishing the 
EACN. 

4.1.2.  Financial investigations and asset recovery 

Four implementation reports issued by the Commission43 have pointed to delays in the efforts 
by many Member States to adopt measures regarding confiscation of the proceeds of crime. 
In 2011 the Commission will propose a revised EU legal framework on confiscation and 
asset  recovery  to  ensure  that  courts  in  Member  States  are  able  to  effectively  confiscate 
criminal and criminally tainted assets and to fully recover the corresponding values, including 
in cases involving corruption. 

The third Anti-Money Laundering Directive44 lists corruption as one of the predicate offences 
for  money  laundering.  Evaluations  conducted  by  the  OECD's  Working  Group  on  Bribery 
suggest  that  very  few  foreign  bribery  cases  are  detected  through  the  national  anti-money 
laundering  systems.  The  Commission  stresses  the  need  for  further  cooperation  between  the 

42 
43 

44 

Council Decision 2008/852/JHA, (OJ L 301, 12.11.2008, p. 38). 
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council based on Article 8 of the 
Council Decision 2007/845/JHA of 6 December 2007 concerning cooperation between Asset Recovery 
Offices  of  the  Member  States  in  the  field  of  tracing  and  identification  of  proceeds  from,  or  other 
property  related  to  crime  (COM(2011)  176  final);  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament and the Council based on Article 22 of the Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 
October  2006  on  the  application  of  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  to  confiscation  orders 
(COM(2010)  428);  Report  from  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Article  6  of  the  Council  Framework 
Decision  2005/212/JHA  of  24  February  2005  on  confiscation  of  crime  related  proceeds, 
instrumentalities and property (COM(2007) 805 final); Report from the Commission based on Article 
14 of the Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European 
Union of orders freezing property or evidence (COM(2008) 885 final). 
Directive 2005/60/EC (OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 15). 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Financial  Intelligence  Units45,  specialized  anti-corruption  agencies  and  law  enforcement 
bodies in Member States. Member States should ensure that financial investigations are 
pursued  effectively  and  consistently  in  corruption  cases  and  that  any  potential  link  with 
organized crime and money laundering is always considered. The Commission will adopt a 
strategy in 2012 to strengthen the quality of financial investigations in Member States and 
the  development  of  financial  intelligence  to  be  shared  between  authorities  within  Member 
States, as well as between Member States and EU agencies and at international level. 

4.1.3.  Protection of whistleblowers 

Effective protection of whistleblowers against retaliation is a key element of anti-corruption 
policies. The relevant legal framework in the EU is uneven, creating difficulties in handling 
cases with a cross-border dimension. The Commission will carry out an assessment of the 
protection  of  persons  reporting  financial  crimes  that  will  also  cover  protection  of 
whistleblowers, and related data protection issues, as a basis for further action at EU level. 

4.1.4.  Training of law enforcement officials 

The  Commission  will  support  the  development  of  targeted  training  programmes  on 
corruption  for  law  enforcement  agencies  through  the  European  Police  College  (CEPOL). 
Those  programmes  should  cover  specific  aspects  of  handling  corruption  cases  with  cross-
border  implications,  for  example,  the  gathering  and  exchanging  of  evidence,  the  link  with 
financial investigations, and the link with investigations of organised crime offences. 

4.2. 

Public procurement  

Public  expenditure  on  works,  goods  and  services  accounts  for  roughly  19%  of  EU  GDP 
(2009). Almost a fifth of this expenditure falls within the scope of the EU Directives on public 
procurement (i.e. approx. €420 billion, or 3.6% of EU GDP). 

The current EU legal framework on public procurement46 does not include specific provisions 
on prevention and sanctioning of conflicts of interest, and comprises only few specific rules 
on sanctioning favouritism and corruption.  

In January 2011, the Commission launched a consultation47 on the modernisation of EU 
public procurement policy. It raises the question whether a common definition of conflict of 
interest and possible safeguards against such situations are needed at EU level, including the 
publication  of  concluded  contracts  to  enhance  transparency,  the  extension  of  exclusion 
grounds  and  'self-cleaning'  measures.  In  the  preparation  of  a  modernised  EU  public 

45 

46 

47 

According to Article 21(2)(b) of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  26  October  2005  on  the  prevention  of  the  use  of  the  financial  system  for  the  purpose  of  money 
laundering  and  terrorist  financing,  the  "FIU  shall  be  established  as  a  central  national  unit.  It  shall  be 
responsible for receiving (and to the extent permitted, requesting), analyzing and disseminating to the 
competent authorities, disclosures of information which concern potential money laundering, potential 
terrorist  financing  or  are  required  by  national  legislation  or  regulation.  It  shall  be  provided  with 
adequate resources in order to fulfill its tasks". 
Directive 2004/18/EC on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply 
contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114) and Directive 2004/17/EC coordinating 
the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ L 
134, 30.4.2004, p. 1).  
Green  Paper  on  the  modernisation  of  EU  public  procurement  policy.  Towards  a  more  efficient 
European Public Procurement Market, COM(2011) 15 final. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
procurement  legislation,  the  Commission  will  carefully  consider  these  issues.  In  this 
context, the Commission will also consider proposing legislation on concessions to create 
better conditions for the fair and competitive award of these contracts, thus reducing the risks 
of corruption. 

4.3. 

Cohesion policy to support administrative capacity building 

The  EU's  cohesion  policy  supports  the  strengthening  of  institutional  capacity  in  Member 
States  to  make  public  services  and  administrations  more  efficient.  Administrative  capacity 
and good governance are included as main priorities in the 2007-2013 Community Strategic 
Guidelines  for  cohesion.  A  total  of  3.5  billion  Euros  have  been  allocated  under  those 
guidelines to strengthen institutional capacity at national, regional and local level of which 2 
billion  Euros  stem  from  the  European  Social  Fund.  The  2007-2013  European  Social  Fund 
regulation  introduced  a  specific  priority  for  strengthening  administrative  capacity  in  less 
developed  regions  and  Member  States.  Such  support  for  institutional  capacity  will  have  a 
positive impact on preventing corruption, by making public services and administrations more 
efficient and transparent. Some Member States have included measures to fight corrcuption in 
their  operation  programmes.  The  Commission  intends  to  continue  support  for  the 
strengthening  of  institutional  capacity  and make  it  available  to  all  Member  States  and 
regions48. 

4.4. 

Accounting standards and statutory audit for EU companies 

The use of International Financial Reporting Standards for consolidated financial statements 
of companies listed on the EU's stock markets became mandatory in 200549. The procedures 
on  statutory  audit  were  harmonised50,  introducing  a  requirement  for  external  quality 
assurance, provisions on public supervision, duties and independence of statutory auditors and 
the  application  of  international  standards.  These  measures  increased  the  credibility,  quality 
and transparency of financial reporting, reducing the risks of corruption. 

The Commission conducted public consultations in 2010 on the audit policy lessons from the 
financial  crisis51.  The  results  of  the  consultation  will  assist  the  Commission  in  deciding  on 
future measures aimed at ensuring consolidated checks and control systems within EU 
companies  to  reduce  the  risk  of  corrupt  practices.  These  may  cover  matters  such  as: 
clarifications  of  the  role  of  auditors,  governance  and  the  independence  of  audit  firms, 
supervision of auditors, creation of a single market for the provision of audit services, and the 
simplification of rules for SMEs. 

48  

49 

50 

51 

Conclusions  of  the  fifth  report  on  economic,  social  and  territorial  cohesion:  the  future  of  cohesion 
policy, COM(2010) 642 final. 
Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 (OJ L 
243, 11.9.2002, p. 1). 
Directive  2006/43/EC  on  statutory  audits  of  annual  accounts  and  consolidated  accounts,  amending 
Council  Directives  78/660/EEC  and  83/349/EEC  and  repealing  Council  Directive  84/253/EEC  (OJ  L 
157, 9.6.2006, p. 87). 
Green Paper on Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis, COM(2010) 561 final. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.5. 

Preventing and fighting political corruption 

As political scandals have repeatedly shown, complex connections are sometimes developed 
between  political  actors,  private  undertakings,  media,  trade  associations  and  foundations52. 
These  connections  are  driven  by  mutual  benefits  in  influencing  key  political  and  economic 
decisions, putting democratic institutions and procedures at risk and rendering the detection of 
corrupt practices more difficult. Under the impetus of the GRECO monitoring process, some 
progress  has  been  seen  in  the  legal  and  institutional  setting  for  the  financing  of  political 
parties  in  several  Member  States.  Unfortunately,  the  enforcement  of  transparency  and 
supervision rules is still unsatisfactory in some Member States. The Commission calls upon 
the  Member  States,  the  national  Parliaments  and  the  European  Parliament  to  ensure 
more  transparency  and  allow  effective  supervision  of  the  financing  of  political  parties 
and other interest groups. The Commission is also committed to respecting its obligations to 
defend the general interest of the Union, in conformity with the obligations laid down by the 
Treaties, in its own Code of conduct and in other relevant rules. 

The media have a key role in increasing transparency and accountability of political figures 
and  are  often  a  resourceful  tool  for  fighting  political  corruption.  The  Commission  urges 
Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure effective implementation of the 
existing  legal  framework  guaranteeing  the  independence  and  freedom  of  the  media, 
including  on  media  funding.  The  Commission  will  support,  through  its  existing 
programmes,  training  of  media  to  strengthen  knowledge  in  specific  areas  relevant  for  the 
detection  of  corruption  (e.g.  money  laundering,  political  party  financing,  banking,  stock 
exchange  markets).  The  Commission  also  supports  in  other  ways  action  limiting  political 
corruption, including through funding of civil society initiatives53. 

4.6. 

Improving statistics 

Currently there is no uniform statistical system across the EU to measure the nature and extent 
of  corruption  or  the  effectiveness  of  anti-corruption  measures.  As  a  follow-up  to  the  EU 
Action  Plan  to  develop  a  comprehensive  and  coherent  EU  strategy  to  measure  crime  and 
criminal justice54, a new Action Plan (2011-2015) is under preparation. The Commission will 
set  up  a  sub-group  of  experts  in  statistics,  as  a  first  step  in  work  aimed  at  establishing  a 
uniform EU statistics system on corruption. 

4.7. 

Integrity in sport 

Corruption in sport is an increasingly visible problem with cross-border dimensions, mainly 
related  to  opacity  of  transfers  and  match-fixing.  The  Commission  will  analyse  possible 
solutions  to  addres  match-fixing  more  effectively55  by  first  launching  a  study  on  how 
corruption in sport is being covered in national legislation. This may offer grounds for further 
policy  actions  in  this  area,  such  as  possibly  establishing  minimum  rules  concerning  the 
definition of criminal offences in this field. 

52 

53  
54 
55 

Allegations  of  links  between  politicians  and  influential  businesses  or  media  owners  have  been  made 
repeatedly in recent years, notably regarding financing of electoral campaigns. 
This support is ensured through the specific programme on 'Prevention and Fight against Crime'. 
COM(2006) 437 final. 
COM(2011) 12 final 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.8. 

Protecting EU public money against corruption 

More than a decade ago, corruption charges led to the entire resignation of the Commission 
and the setting up of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). One of the core tasks of OLAF 
is  to  conduct  administrative  investigations  for  the  purpose  of  fighting  fraud,  corruption  and 
any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the EU56.  

In  2011,  several  initiatives  will  be  taken  to  step  up  the  fight  against  fraud  and  corruption 
affecting  EU  public  money.  The  Communication  on  the  protection  of  EU  financial 
interests by criminal law and administrative investigations57 sets out how the Commission 
intends to safeguard taxpayers' money at EU level against illegal activities, including against 
threats posed by corruption inside and outside the EU institutions. The Communication points 
to opportunities for the improvement of the criminal law framework, of procedural tools for 
investigators  and  prosecutors,  as  well  as  possible  institutional  developments  such  as  the 
setting up of a European Public Prosecutor's Office.  

The Commission also intends to adopt a new anti-fraud strategy reinforcing the Union's 
financial policies with a view to better protect the EU's financial interests. The strategy will 
identify  priorities  and  specific  areas  of  activity  in  order  to  enhance  the  current  Commission 
anti-fraud framework, with a focus on prevention. 

Complementing  those  initiatives,  the  Commission's  proposal  for  amending  the  legal 
framework of OLAF58 aims at increasing the efficiency and speed of OLAF investigations, 
at  strengthening  procedural  guarantees,  as  well  as  at  reinforcing  OLAF's  cooperation  with 
Member States and at improving its governance. 

5. 

STRONGER FOCUS ON CORRUPTION IN EU EXTERNAL POLICIES  

5.1. 

Candidate countries, potential candidates and neighbourhood countries 

The  process  of  enlargement  of  the  EU  has  been  a  key  vehicle  for  major  anti-corruption 
reforms in the candidate countries and potential candidates. The most recent accessions had a 
considerable impact on the actual weight of anti-corruption policies within the EU. They also 
showed that at the time of accession it was still very difficult to demonstrate a track record 
of implementation and the irreversibility of anti-corruption reforms. Moreover, following 
accession, efforts to fight corruption still had to be monitored.  

The  2005  negotiating  frameworks  for  Croatia  and  Turkey  introduced  a  specific  chapter59 
covering  a  range  of  rule  of  law  issues,  including  judicial  reform  and  the  fight  against 
corruption.  The  renewed  consensus  on  enlargement60,  has  further  strengthened  the  focus  on 
the rule of law.  

Aware  of  the  fact  that,  without  a  strong  political  will,  investing  EU  funds  in  institution 
building  alone  cannot  guarantee  the  success  of  anti-corruption  policies,  the  Commission 
intensified  in  2010  its  dialogue  on  rule  of  law  with  the  candidate  countries  and  potential 

56  
57 

58 
59 
60 

OLAF reports annually on its activities, see http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/reports/olaf_en.html. 
Communication on the protection of the financial interests of the European Union by criminal law and 
by administrative investigations: An integrated policy to safeguard the taxpayers' money, COM(2011) 
293 final. 
COM(2011) 135 final. 
Chapter 23. 
Renewed consensus on enlargement endorsed on 14 and 15 December 2006. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
candidates.  The  reinforced  dialogue  builds  on  the  experience  gained  during  the  visa 
liberalisation  process.  The  roadmaps  containing  benchmarks  to  which  countries  had  to 
conform  in  order  to  obtain  visa  liberalisation  proved  to  be  an  efficient  tool  to  motivate  and 
prioritise reform. The aim of the dialogue on rule of law is to strengthen such benchmarking 
at  earlier  stages  of  the  pre-accession  process.  The  Commission  Opinions  on  Albania's  and 
Montenegro's  applications  for  EU  membership  already  set  recommendations  that  should  be 
met before the opening of negotiations. The dialogue will be accompanied by yearly expert 
missions to be carried out with participation of experts from EU Member States, which will in 
this way be associated to the process more closely. 

Based on these tools, the Commission will continue to give high priority to the monitoring 
of  anti-corruption  policies  and  will  enforce  thorough  scrutiny  from  the  early  stages  of 
accession  preparations  with  the  aim  of  securing  guarantees  for  the  sustainability  of 
reforms. The Commission will also promote close coordination of the international donors to 
avoid any overlapping and to better channel the resources invested. 

Under  the  umbrella  of  the  European  Neighbourhood  Policy,  the  High  Representative  and 
the  Commission  will  promote  reinforcing  the  capacity  to  fight  corruption  in  the 
neighbourhood countries as a key aspect of the support given61. This is especially important 
given  the  recent  events  in  North  Africa,  where  uprisings  against  the  regimes  were  also 
prompted by the urge to eradicate a culture of corruption in their countries. 

5.2. 

Cooperation and development policies 

The  support  for  strengthening  good  governance  and  democratisation  granted  by  the  EU  as 
part  of  cooperation  and  development  policy  also  covers  anti-corruption  policies62.  The 
Commission  follows  in  this  context  a  partnership-based  approach,  engaging  dialogue  with 
partner countries’ governments and civil society, EU Member States and other donors. While 
recognising that without political will inside the country, outside support is unlikely to deliver 
results, the Commission considers that incentive-based approaches may prove their benefits63. 
The Commission intends to strengthen dialogue with partner countries on anti-fraud and anti-
corruption issues and its support to capacity building, leading towards the adoption of national 
strategies  to  fight  corruption  in  all  its  forms.  During  the  programming  period  as  well  as 
throughout the implementation process particular attention will be paid to such strategies and 
their effective implementation. 

In line with that objective, the  Commission will promote greater use of the conditionality 
principle in the  field of  development  to  encourage compliance with minimum international 
anti-corruption  standards  as  set  out  in  UNCAC  and  other  international  and  regional 
conventions  these  countries  are  party  to.  In  the  same  vein,  the  Commission  will  promote  a 
stronger  use  of  the  provisions  covering  anti-corruption  matters  already  existing  in  the 
legal  bases  for  cooperation  with  partner  countries,  undertaking  specific  consultations  in 

61 

62 

63 

Joint  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  -  A  new  response  to  a  changing  Neighbourhood, 
COM(2011) 303. 
Communication  on  Governance  and  Development,  COM(2003)  615  final,  and  Communication  on 
Governance  in  the  European  consensus  on  development:  towards  an  harmonised  approach  within  the 
European Union, COM (2006) 421 final.  
E.g. the governance initiative for African, Caribbean and Pacific countries which took the form of an 
'incentive tranche' of 2.7 billion Euros to encourage political will to reform. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
response  to  instances  of  serious  corruption  cases,  and  applying  sanctions  if  appropriate 
measures are not put in place.  

Finally,  the  Commission  has  established,  and  will  continue  to  support,  global  frameworks 
aiming  at  setting  transparent  systems  for  extracting  and  trading  natural  resources  and  raw 
materials,  such  as  the  Forest  Law  Enforcement  Governance  and  Trade64
  and  the  Extractive 
Industries Transparency Initiative. 

5.3. 

Trade policy 

EU trade policy contributes to encouraging third countries to respect, inter alia, human rights 
and  good  governance  through  bilateral  trade  relations  and  through  tools  such  as  the 
Generalised  System  of  Preferences.  The  Commission  recently  proposed  a  reshape  of  the 
Generalized  System  of  Preferences,65  reinforcing  the  incentives  for  the  respect  of  good 
governance  standards  through  the  adherence  and  implementation  of  key  international 
conventions such as the UNCAC. 

The Commission will continue to promote the inclusion of specific provisions in Free Trade 
Agreements on transparency in international government procurement, and in the content of 
World  Trade  Organization  the  extension  to  other  WTO  Parties  of  the  Agreement  on 
Government  Procurement  which  contains  provisions  on  enhanced 
in 
international procurement, limiting the risk of corruption. 

transparency 

6. 

CONCLUSION  

Corruption continues to be a cause of concern in the EU, as it is globally. Although the nature 
and extent of corruption vary, it exists in all Member States, causing serious economic, social, 
and democratic harm.  

International  instruments,  and  EU  anti-corruption  legislation,  are  already  in  place,  but 
implementation  remains  insufficient.  The  Commission  calls  on  EU  Member  States  to 
ensure  that  all  relevant  legal  instruments  are  fully  transposed  into  their  legislation  and, 
crucially,  effectively  followed  up  and  enforced  through  the  detection  and  prosecution  of 
corruption  offences,  backed  up  by  criminal  law  provisions  and  a  systematic  track  record  of 
deterrent penalties and asset recovery. 

To achieve this, firmer political commitment by all decision-makers in the EU is needed. The 
existing  international  monitoring  and  evaluation  mechanisms  have,  so  far,  not  produced  the 
necessary  momentum.  Action  at  EU  level  is  therefore  needed  to  strengthen  the  political 
will, in all EU Member States, to vigorously tackle corruption.  

To  that  end,  the  Commission  will  set  up  the  EU  Anti-Corruption  Report  to  periodically 
assess  Member  States'  efforts,  starting  in  2013.  In  parallel,  the  EU  should  negotiate  its 
participation in the Council of Europe Group of State against Corruption (GRECO).  

The  EU  should  also  continue,  as  part  of  a  comprehensive  approach,  to address  corruption 
through all relevant EU policies – internal as well as external. Greater focus should be put 

64 

65 

Communication on the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan, COM(2003) 251 
final. 
COM(2011) 241 final. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
on  corruption  in  the  areas  of  judicial  and  police  cooperation,  modernised  EU  rules  on 
confiscation of criminal assets, a revised EU public procurement legislation, better EU crime 
statistics, an enhanced anti-fraud policy to protect EU financial interests, the EU enlargement 
process, and greater use of conditionality in EU cooperation and development policies. At the 
same  time,  private-public  dialogue  at  EU  level  on  how  to  prevent  corruption  within  the 
business sector should be further developed with the support of the Commission. 

These initiatives will not, realistically, eradicate corruption, within or outside the EU. Taken 
together, they will however help to reduce the problem, to the benefit of all. 

EN 

18 

   EN