COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER accompanying theREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTbased on article 9 of the council framework decision 2003/568/JHA OF 22 JULY 2003on combating corruption in the private sector  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER accompanying theREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTbased on article 9 of the council framework decision 2003/568/JHA OF 22 JULY 2003on combating corruption in the private sector
Date: 2011-06-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: corruption, fight against crime, national implementing measure, penalty, private sector

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 6.6.2011 
SEC(2011) 663 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

accompanying the 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND TO THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

based on article 9 of the council framework decision 2003/568/JHA OF 22 JULY 2003
on combating corruption in the private sector 

{COM(2011) 309 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
PART 1 

Article 2 – Active and passive corruption in the private sector 

PART 2 

Article 7 – Jurisdiction 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
PART 1 – Article 2 – Active and passive corruption in the private sector 

1.1. 

Article 2 – Active and passive corruption in the private sector 

1.1.1.  General comments 

Article  2  is  a  key  Article  of  the  2003  Framework  Decision  (FD).  It  defines  in  detail  offences 
relating to active and passive corruption, when carried out in the course of business activities. The 
scope of application of Article 2(1) includes business activities in both profit and non-profit entities, 
reflecting the general expansion of scope beyond the internal market. 

However,  Member  States  could  declare  that  they  would  limit  the  scope  to  conduct  involving  a 
distortion of competition in relation to the purchase of goods or commercial services. 

Such a declaration was entered by DE, AT, IT and PL. 

1.1.2. 

Summary table of transposing legislation adopted by Member States 

Measures  which  appeared  relevant  to 
Commission's  analysis  (where  different 
from MS' citations) 

Section 162 Act 140/1961 Crime Act 

Section  299(2)  Criminal  Code  (2007 
report) 

MS  Legislation 

BE  Art. 504 bis, §1 and §2, Criminal Code 

BG  Art. 225 c Criminal code 

CZ 

Section  331,  333,  334  (1)(3)  Act  40/2009 
Criminal  Code,  section160  161  and 
section  162,  162a  Act  140/1961  Crime 
Act,  section  332  Act  40/2009  Criminal 
Code 

DK  No reply 

DE 

§ 299 stGB Criminal code 

EE  Art.  288,  293-298  Criminal  Code,  art. 

393, 394 

IE 

Section  1  of  the  1906  Act,  as  inserted  by 
the Act of 2001 

EL  Art. 5 Law 3560/2007 

ES 

No reply 

FR  Art. 445-1 art. 445-2 Criminal code 

IT 

Art. 2635 civil code 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CY 

Section  4  of  the  Law  23  (III)/2000 
ratifying the Council of Europe Criminal 
Law  Convention  on  Corruption  (Section 
3 of the Law on prevention of corruption 
161 refers to public sector corruption) 

LV  Chapter  XIX  "criminal  offences  of  an 
economic  nature"  special  part  criminal 
code 

LT  No reply 

Articles  225-227,  230,  Criminal  Code 
(2007 report) 

LU  No specific provisions forwarded 

Art. 310, 310-1 Criminal Code 

HU  Art.  251,252,254  Act  IV  of  1978  on  the 

Criminal Code 

MT  Art. 121(3), art. 121D Criminal Code 

Art.112, 115, 120(1), Criminal Code 

NL  Art. 46a and Art. 328 ter, criminal code 

AT 

§§  168  c,  d  and  e,  §§153,  153a  and  304, 
305,  306,  307,  308  of  the  Criminal  Code 
and  §10  Law  of  Unfair  Competition 
(UWG) 

2, 

Section 
of 
Verbandsverantwortlichkeitsgesetz 
on the liability of associations] 

§3 

the 
[Law 

PL 

Article 296a(1) Criminal Code 

Articles 115, 296a(2) Criminal Code 

PT 

Art. 8 art. 9 law. 20/2008 of 21 April 2008 

RO  Art. 254,255,258 Criminal code 

Art. 147,145, Criminal Code (definitions) 

SI 

Art. 241, 242 Criminal Code 

Art.20(1), Criminal Code. 

SK 

Section  131(3),  328,  329,  330,  331,  332,  333, 
334, 335, 336 Criminal code. 

FI 

Chapter 30 section 7 and 8 Criminal code 

SE 

UK 

Chapter 17 – Section 7 and Chapter 20 – 
section 2, Criminal Code 

Section  1,  Prevention  of  Corruption 
Act,1906 

Bribery Act 2010 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.1.3. 

Summary account of the transposition 

As in 2007, implementation of the Article 2 proved highly problematic for Member States. In 
2007,  only  2  Member  States  (BE,  UK)  correctly  transposed  every  element  of  the  offence. 
Currently 9 Member States (BE, BG, CZ, FR, IE, CY, PT, FI, UK) have correctly transposed 
all of them. 

There  was  a  particular  difficulty  for  Member  States  in  capturing  the  full  meaning  of  the 
phrases  "directly  or  through  an  intermediary"  and  "a  person  who  in  any  capacity  directs  or 
work" in their national legislation.  

The seven component requirements of the Article 2(1) are listed below.  

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

•  "Promising, offering or giving"  

•  "Directly or through an intermediary"  

•  "Directly or through an intermediary"  

•  "Requesting  or  receiving  or  accepting  the 

•  "A  person  who  in  any  capacity  directs  or 

works"  

•  "An undue advantage of any kind"  

promise of"  

•  "For a private-sector entity"  

•  "For oneself or for a third party"  

•  "An undue advantage of any kind"  

•  "While 

in  any  capacity  directing  or 

•  "For that person or for a third party"  

•  "Perform  or  refrain  from  performing  any 

working"  

•  "For a private-sector entity"  

act, in breach of that person's duties" 

•  "Perform  or  refrain  from  performing  any 

act, in breach of that person's duties" 

1.1.4.  Detailed analysis 

1.1.4.1.  Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption  

12  Member  States  (BE,  BG,  CZ,  DK,  IE,  EL,  FR,  CY,  PT,  FI,  SI,  UK)  meet  seven 
requirements of the definition of active corruption.  

The most problematic elements of transposing Article2 (1)(a) appear to be covering the full 
scope of "promising, offering or giving" and "perform or refrain from performing any act, in 
breach of that person's duties." 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
NL limited the offence to instances in which the employer or principal was not informed of 
this  case.  LU  requires  that  the  employer  is  not  aware  and  does  not  approve  the  criminal 
behaviour. DE, AT, IT and PL had limited the scope of application of this requirement in line 
with  the  Article  2(3).  DE  limited  the  scope  to  acts  relating  to  purchase  of  goods  or 
commercial  services;  AT  limited  the  offence  to  "legal  acts"  and  PL  limited  the  offence  to 
behaviour  resulting  in  losses,  unfair  competition  or  inadmissible  preferential  action.  DE 
informed that new legislation to meet this requirement of the Framework Decision is pending. 

1.1.4.2.  In addition the Commission notes the following problems in transposition: 

–  EE does not cover offering, intermediaries, performing/refraining from performing of the 

duties in breach of one’s duties 

–  IT  does  not  cover  offering  of  a  bribe,  intermediaries,  persons  who  work  in  the  private 

sector, as well as third party to whom the bribe is destined 

–  LV does not cover the element of promising a bribe, it also establishes a limitation on the 
offence to cases when offer/promise was accepted. A responsible employee ... or a person 
authorised", as noted in the 2007 assessment, does not seem to include all employees, and 
thus  does  not  fully  address  the  wording  "any  person  who  in  any  capacity  directs  or 
works(…)".  

–  HU does not refer to “offering” an advantage or to “directly or indirectly” 

–  RO does not make reference to a third part advantage 

–  SK does not address specifically offering of the bribe or advantage. 

1.1.4.3.  Article 2(1) (b) – passive corruption 

12 Member States (BE, BG, CZ, IE, FR, CY, MT, PT, SI, SK, FI, UK) are fully compliant 
with the Article 2(1) (b).  

In addition, the following was noted: 

–  DE makes a declaration which is not valid anymore 

–  EE does not refer to intermediary, to “requesting” a bribe and undue advantage 

–  EL does not cover the third party advantage 

–  IT  does  not  cover  intermediaries,  third  party  advantage,  “working”  and  “requesting”  a 

bribe 

–  LV – acceptance of an offer is not included in LV legislation 

–  LU limits the scope of this article (see Article 2(1) (a)) 

–  HU does not address "directly or indirectly" 

–  NL  –  advantage  is  to  be  concealed  from  the  employer  (narrower  than  the  Framework 

Decision) 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
–  AT  –  more  information  is  needed  on  intermediaries.  In  addition,  "servant/agent"  of  a 

private sector entity does not seem to cover those who direct such an entity. 

1.1.4.4.  Article 2(2) 

Article 2(2) establishes that Article 2(1) applies to business activities in both profit and non-
profit  entities.  Some  Member  States  make  explicit  reference  to  the  inclusion  of  non-profit 
entities in their legislation while others have worded their legislation in such a broad way that 
non-profit entities are not excluded. Overall, 16 Member States transposed fully this provision 
(BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, IE, FR, CY, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, FI, UK). In some cases, the 
wording  of  the  legislation  appears  broad  enough  to  cover  this  provision,  but  additional 
explanation would be necessary (EL, IT, LV, MT, AT, SK, SE). 

1.1.4.5.  Article 2(3) 

Under Article 2(3), four Member States made a Declaration (DE, IT, AT, PL) and submitted it 
already for the previous report. The declaration was valid until 22 July 2010 (Article 2(4) of 
the Framework Decision). Under Article 2(5) of the Framework Decision, the Council was to 
review Article 2 in due time before 22 July 2010 with a view to considering whether it is to be 
possible  to  renew  declarations  made  under  paragraph  3.  As  the  Council  did  not  take  the 
decision to extend the possibility of renewing the declarations, the Commission considers that 
the declarations expired and that Member States need to amend their legislation accordingly. 

1.1.4.6.  Summary table of transposition of Article 2 

MS 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

Article 2 (1) 
(a) 

Article 2 (1) 
(b) 

Article 2.2 

Article 2.3 

Comments 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

BE has 
transposed 
Article 2 

BG has 
transposed 
Article 2 

CZ has 
transposed 
Article 2 

DK 
(2007) 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

DK has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

DE 

EE 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Declaration 
expired 22 
July 2010. 

DE has partly 
transposed 
Article 2. 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

EE has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Article 2 (1) 
(a) 

Article 2 (1) 
(b) 

Article 2.2 

Article 2.3 

Comments 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Does not make 
a declaration 

EL 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Insufficient 
information 
for assessment 

Does not make 
a declaration 

ES 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Insufficient 
information 
for assessment 

Declaration 
expired 22 
July 2010. 

It has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

MS 

IE 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

No specific 
provision 

Does not make 
a declaration 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Insufficient 
information 
for assessment 

Does not make 
a declaration 

LT 
(2007) 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Insufficient 
information 
for assessment 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

LU 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Insufficient 
information 
for assessment 

Does not make 
a declaration 

HU  Meets partly 

the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

MT 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Does not make 
a declaration 

Insufficient 
information 
for assessment 

Does not make 
a declaration 

IE has not 
fully 
transposed 
Article 2 

EL has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

Insufficient 
information 
for assessment 

FR has 
transposed 
Article 2 

CY has not 
fully 
transposed 
Article 2 

LV has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

LT has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

LU has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

HU has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

MT has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
MS 

NL 

AT 

PT 

RO 

Article 2 (1) 
(a) 

Article 2 (1) 
(b) 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Article 2.2 

Article 2.3 

Comments 

Meets the 
requirements 

Does not make 
a declaration 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Insufficient 
information 
for assessment 

NL has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

AT has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

PL has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

PT has 
transposed 
Article 2 

RO has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

SI has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

'in as far as 
art.2 is not 
transposed, 
the exception 
clause of 
paragraph 3 is 
used' 

Declaration 
expired 22 
July 2010. 

Made a 
Declaration in 
2007, reported 
in Article 296 
(a) 

Declaration 
expired 22 
July 2010. 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

SK has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

PL 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

SI 

Meets  the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

SK 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Amendments 
to the 
Criminal Code 
in preparation 
to include non-
profit entities 

Insufficient 
information 
for assessment 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
MS 

FI 

SE 

Article 2 (1) 
(a) 

Article 2 (1) 
(b) 

Article 2.2 

Article 2.3 

Comments 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

FI has 
transposed 
Article 2 

Meets partly 
the 
requirements 

Meets partly 
requirements 

Insufficient 
information 
for assessment 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

SE has partly 
transposed 
Article 2 

UK 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Does not make 
a Declaration 

UK has 
transposed 
Article 2 

1.1.5.  Analysis of Member States 

The  discussion  below  builds  on  the  observations  and  assessment  made  in  the  2007 
implementation  report.  In  case  no  further  changes  or  additional  explanations  have  been 
communicated to the Commission, the assessment of the 2007 report is assumed to hold. 

Belgium 

BE informed the Commission that Article 504bis of the Belgian Penal Code indicates active 
and  passive  corruption.  BE  did  not  supply  the  text  of  the  legislation,  and  the  Commission 
assumes  that  no  further  changes  have  been  effected  from  the  2007  report.  BE  is  therefore 
assumed to be compliant with the requirements of Art.2 of the FD. 

Article 2(1) 

Article  2(1)(a)  of  the  FD,  defining  active  corruption  in  the  private  sector,  is  included  under 
Article  504bis  §  2  of  the  Belgian  Penal  Code.  Article  2(1)(b)  of  the  FD,  defining  passive 
corruption in the private sector, is included in the Belgian Penal Code under Article 504bis §1 
er.  The  Article  contains  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  FD,  as  discussed  in  the  2007 
assessment.  

Belgian legislation, it should be noted, specifies  "breach of that person's duties" must occur 
without  the  knowledge  or  authorisation  of  the  offender's  superiors,  which  seems  to  be 
narrower than the scope of the Framework Decision. BE was considered as compliant with the 
FD in this respect in 2007 however, the Commission would welcome further comment on this 
particular provision.  

BE meets the requirements of Art. 2(1) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

BE indicated Article 504bis of the Belgian Penal Code as the relevant provision applying to 
both profit and non-profit entities without supplying the text. No explicit mention is made of 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
profit/non-profit  entities,  but  rather  the  text  refers  generally  to  legal  persons.  Provisions  on 
legal persons and those related to ASBLs allow to conclude that BE meets this requirement. 

BE meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of the FD.  

Bulgaria 

Bulgaria  informed  the  Commission  that  the  relevant  legislation  is  Article  225(c)  of  the 
Bulgarian Penal Code. This legislation indicates that Bulgaria has fully transposed Article 2 
of the FD, as discussed below.  

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

Article  225c(2)  defines  active  corruption,  whereas  paragraphs  (3)  and  (4)  respectively 
establish  that  the  benefit  may  be  for  third  persons  and  that  the  act  may  occur  through 
intermediaries. 

"Promising, offering or giving" is covered by "offers, promises or gives."  
"Directly  or  through  an  intermediary"  is  not  explicitly  noted,  albeit  225c(4)  notes  that 
"whoever  mediates  in  the  perpetration  of  one  of  the  acts  under  the  preceding  paragraphs  ... 
shall be punished." 
"A person who in any capacity directs or works" is covered by "a person who works." 
"For a private-sector entity" is covered by "a legal person or sole trader." 
"An undue advantage of any kind" is covered by "a gift or an undue advantage of any kind."  
"For that person or for a third party" is covered by 225c(3) "shall also be imposed when, with 
the consent ... the gift or advantage is offered, promised or given to another person." 
"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" is covered by 
"performing or refraining from performing any act in breach of their duties." 

BG meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

Article  225c(1)  defines  passive  corruption,  whereas  paragraphs  (3)  and  (4)  respectively 
establish  that  the  benefit  may  be  for  third  persons  and  that  the  act  may  occur  through 
intermediaries. 

"Directly  or  through  an  intermediary"  is  not  explicitly  noted,  albeit  225c(4)  notes  that 
"whoever  mediates  in  the  perpetration  of  one  of  the  acts  under  the  preceding  paragraphs  ... 
shall be punished." 
"Requesting or receiving or accepting the promise of" is covered by "requests or accepts ... or 
accepts an offer or promise of." 
"An undue advantage of any kind" is covered by "a gift or an undue advantage of any kind." 
"For oneself or for a third party" is covered by 225c(3) "shall also be imposed when, with the 
consent ... the gift or advantage is offered, promised or given to another person." 
"While in any capacity directing or working" is covered by "while working for." 
"For a private-sector entity" is covered by "a legal person or sole trader." 
"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" is covered by 
"perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties." 

BG meets the requirements of Art. 2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Bulgarian  legislation  does  not  make  reference  to  profit  or  non-profit  organization,  only  to 
legal person and sole trader in a general way, but it is the Commission understanding that the 
legal  person  concept  covers  also  non  profit  entities,  such  as  associations  or  foundations. 
Further clarification of this matter would ne welcome by the Commission. 

BG appears to meet the requirements of Art. 2(2) of the FD. 

Czech Republic 

CZ  informed  the  Commission  that  the  following  legislation  transposes  Art  2(1)  of  the  FD: 
Section 331, 333, 334 (1)(3) Act 40/2009 Criminal Code; section 160, 161 and section 162, 
162a Act 140/1961 Crime Act, section 332 Act 40/2009 Criminal Code. As discussed below, 
these legal provisions indicate that CZ has fully transposed Article 2 of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

"Promising, offering or giving" is covered by "provides, offers or promises" (Section 161(1) 
Crime Act; Section 332, Criminal Code). 
"Directly or through an intermediary" appears to be covered by the wording "a bribe to or for 
another" (Section 332(1) Criminal Code). 
"A  person  who  in  any  capacity  directs  or  works"  is  covered  by  "attending  to  matters  of 
general interest" (Section 161(1) Crime Act; Section 332, Criminal Code) which, as CZ points 
out,  also  encompasses  "the  maintenance  of  an  obligation,  imposed  by  law  or  assumed 
contractually,  intended  to  ensure  that,  in  business  relations,  there  is  no  damage  to  or  unjust 
favouritism  of  participants  in  these  relations  or  of  persons  acting  on  their  behalf"  (Section 
162a, Crime Act; Section 334, Criminal Code). 
"For a private-sector entity" is also covered through "attending to matters of general interest," 
which include business relations (see above). 
"An  undue  advantage  of  any  kind"  is  covered  by  the  definition  of  "bribe"  (Section  161(1) 
Crime Act; Section 332, Criminal Code), which is defined as "an undue advantage consisting 
of direct material enrichment or other advantage ... to which he is not entitled" (Section 162a, 
Crime Act; Section 334, Criminal Code). 
"For that person or for a third party" is covered in the definition of "bribe" – "to be received 
by the bribed person or, with that person's consent, another person" (Section 162a, Crime Act; 
Section 334, Criminal Code). 
"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" is addressed in 
a generic manner, relating to "attending to matters of general interest" (see above). It appears 
that  the  general  obligations  in  business  relations  cover  the  performance/non-performance  of 
acts and the element of breach of duty. 

CZ meets the requirements of Art. 2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

"Directly  or  through  an  intermediary"  is  covered  by  "himself  or  through  another"  (Section 
331, Criminal Code). 
"Requesting or receiving or accepting the promise of" is covered by "accepts or secures the 
promise of ... [or] seeks" (Section 160(1)-(2), Crime Act; Section 331, Criminal Code). 
"An undue advantage of any kind" is covered by the definition of "bribe" (see discussion on 
active corruption"). 
"For  oneself  or  for  a  third  party"  is  covered  through  "for  himself  or  for  another"  (Section 
331(1), Criminal Code). 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
"While in any capacity directing or working" is covered by "attending to matters of general 
interest" (see discussion on active corruption). 
"For a private-sector entity" is also covered through "attending to matters of general interest," 
which include business relations (see above). 
"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" is addressed in 
a  generic  manner,  relating  to  "attending  to  matters  of  general  interest"  (see  discussion  on 
active corruption).  

In  addition  to  the  elements  required  by  the  FD,  Czech  legislation  also  explicitly  specifies 
differential  punishments  for  actions  committed  "with  the  intention  of  causing  significant 
damage or other particularly serious consequence to another" (Act 140/1961, Section 161(2)). 

CZ meets the requirements of Art. 2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

The  relevant  legislation  is  section  334  of  the  Criminal  Code  which  states  "(3)  Attending  to 
matters of general interest shall also encompass the maintenance of an obligation, imposed by 
law  or  assumed  contractually,  intended  to  ensure  that,  in  business  relations,  there  is  no 
damage to or unjust favouritism of participants in these relations or of persons acting on their 
behalf." Czech authorities informed that " in terms of meeting the constituent elements, it is 
irrelevant whether the entity is a for-profit or not-for-profit entity." 

CZ meets the requirements of Art. 2(2) of the FD. 

Germany 

The relevant provision in German legislation relating to Article 2 of the FD is Article 299 of 
the  Strafgesetzbuch  (Criminal  Code,  StGB).  While  the  provision  itself  remains  unchanged 
since the previous assessment, DE provided comments on a number of clarifications requested 
by  the  Commission.  Also  worth  noting  is  the  fact  that  DE's  declaration  under  Article  2(3), 
limiting the scope of application of Article 2(1) only to such conduct which involves, or could 
involve,  a  distortion  of  competition  in  relation  to  the  purchase  of  goods  or  commercial 
services has expired, in line with the provision of the art 2(3). The discussion below addresses 
the pertinent elements. 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

In the 2007 assessment, COM noted that German legislation did not address the requirement 
"directly  or  indirectly."  DE  clarified  that  while  intermediaries  are  not  expressly  referred  to, 
established case law points to the fact that such conduct is nonetheless covered.  
DE  also  explained  that  the  reference  to  "employee"  and  "agent"  encompass  employees, 
managers and board members and thus meets the FD reference to "who in any capacity works 
or directs." 
"An undue advantage of any kind," DE explains, is understood as the component element of 
"advantage"  (Vorteil).  The  same  term  is  used  in  public  sector  corruption  and  Introductory 
Law  of  the  Criminal  Code  of  1974  specifies  that  this  term  includes  both  material  and 
immaterial advantages. 
The  German  provision  "giving  unfair  preference  to  him  or  another  person  in  relation  to  the 
purchase of goods or commercial services" is linked to the declaration under Art.2(3) of the 
FD. However, given that the declaration can no longer be considered valid, it should be noted 
that this definition is narrower than the FD requirement "perform or refrain from performing 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
the  German  Bundestag  a  Bill 

any  act,  in  breach  of  that  person's  duties."  Independently  of  this  declaration,  the  Federal 
(Entwurf  eines  … 
Government  has  put  before 
Strafrechtsänderungsgesetzes vom 4. Oktober 2007 [Bill for a … Law to amend the criminal 
law of 4 October 2007], Parliamentary Record 16/6658), which provides for an amendment of 
the constituent element of the offence in § 299 StGB which is consistent with Article 2(1) of 
the Framework Decision. It is proposed that in future the acceptance and grant of advantages in 
return for breaches of duty against the undertaking are also to constitute criminal offences (see 
§ 299(1)(2) and (2)(2) StGB in the version of the Government Bill, ‘principals model’). 

DE partly meets the requirements of Art. 2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article (2)(1)(b) – passive corruption 

"Through an intermediary" requirement is met in consideration with case law (see discussion 
on active corruption). 
"An undue advantage of any kind" is met in consideration of the explanation offered by DE 
(see discussion on active corruption). 
"While  in  any  capacity  directing  or  working"  is  met  in  consideration  of  the  explanation 
offered by DE (see discussion on active corruption). 
Given the expiry of DE's declaration and pending the entry into force of new legislation (see 
discussion  on  active  corruption),  "perform  or  refrain  from  performing  any  act,  in  breach  of 
that person's duties" is only partly met.  

DE partly meets the requirements of Art. 2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

The  relevant  legislation  cited  by  the  German  authorities  applies  only  to  "the  purchase  of 
goods or commercial services" and "in the course of business." As such, it does not appear to 
apply  to  non-profit  entities.However,  DE  explains  that  the  term  "geschäftlicher  Betrieb" 
(business  enterprise)  in  section  299  German  CC  not  only  covers  entities  which  have  the 
intention of making profits but also entities that do not persue this intention, including social, 
charitable, cultural, clerical and all other non-profit entities (DE refers to the decision of the 
Federal Court (BGH) of 9 October 1990, para. 67, concerning "clerical entities"). This view is 
also reflected in commentary literature to secton 299. Taking into account the explanation,  

DE  meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of the FD. 

Estonia 

While  EE  did  not  submit  the  cited  articles  of  legislation,  an  explanation  as  to  how  relevant 
articles transpose the FD was provided to the Commission, addressing some of the concerns 
noted  in  the  2007  assessment.  Where  additional  information  was  provided  by  EE,  it  is 
discussed  below.  In  other  respects  the  observations  made  in  the  2007  report  hold.  These 
observations indicate that EE has partially transposed Art.2 of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

EE  provided  an  elaboration  of  "an  official,"  to  whom  private  sector  corruption  pertains, 
explaining that "'an official' is also a person who directs a legal person in private law or acts 
on behalf of such a person or acts on behalf of another natural person" (§288(2), Penal Code). 
This provision appears to meet the requirements of "who in any capacity works or directs." 
The above elaboration also indicates that EE meets the requirement "in the private sector." 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
While  no  definition  of  "bribe"  or  "gratuity"  were  provided,  making  it  impossible  to  assess 
whether  EE  meets  the  requirement  of  "an  undue  advantage  of  any  kind,"  EE  did,  however, 
inform  the  Commission  that  revised  definitions  of  "bribe"  and  "gratuity"  make  explicit 
reference to third party advantage, indicating that EE now meets the requirements of "for that 
person or for a third party." 
The  following  requirements  were  not  fully  met  in  the  previous  assessment,  nor  were  any 
further explanations offered: "offering," "through an intermediary," "perform or refrain from 
performing any act, in breach of that person's duties." 

EE partly meets the requirements of Art. 2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

As discussed with reference to active corruption, EE informs that the new reference to "bribe" 
and "gratuity" makes explicit reference "for a third party." 
As  discussed  with  reference  to  active  corruption,  EE  appears  to  meet  "who  in  any  capacity 
works or directs." 
"Lawful  acts  ...  a  lawful  omission  ...  an  unlawful  act  ...  an  unlawful  omission"  meet  the 
requirement "perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties." 
The  following  requirements  were  not  fully  met  in  the  previous  assessment,  nor  was  any 
further explanation offered: "through an intermediary," requesting," "an undue advantage." 

Notably, for passive corruption, Estonian legislation makes a  distinction  in the  penalties for 
an  advantage  (gratuity)  which  comprises  a  lawful  act  or  omission  on  the  one  hand,  or  an 
advantage  (a  bribe)  which  comprises  unlawful  act  or  omission  on  the  other,  with  the  latter 
carrying a higher penalty than the former. 

EE partly meets the requirements of Art. 2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

Estonian  authorities  informed  about  the  relevant  legislation  is  §  288(2)  Penal  Code,  which 
makes no distinction between profit and non-profit private law legal persons. 

EE meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of the FD. 

Ireland 

IE informed the Commission that Article 2(1) is transposed in Irish legislation by means of 
the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act  1906  and  its  2001  Amendment  Act.  In  the  meantime,  the 
issue 
Prevention  of  Corruption  (amendment)  Act  2010  addressing 
(gift/consideration/advantage) was adopted,  

the  outstanding 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

In  the  2007  report,  the  wording  "any  gift  or  consideration"  was  considered  as  not  fully 
compliant with "an undue advantage of any kind." The 2010 Act has changed the wording to 
"gift, consideration or advantage" which meets the requirement.  

IE meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
As noted in the 2007 assessment. 

IE meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

As noted in the 2007 assessment, 

IE meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of the FD. 

Greece 

EL  informed  the  Commission  that  the  relevant  legislation  is  Article  5  of  Law  3560, 
Ratification  and  application  of  the  Criminal  Law  Convention  on  Corruption  and  the 
Additional  Protocol  thereto  and  provided  a  translation  of  this  legislation.  This  legislation 
indicates  that  EL  has  partially  transposed  Art.2  of  the  FD  –  the  element  of  third  party 
advantage  is  missing  in  the  definition  of  passive  corruption,  and  it  is  unclear  whether  the 
provisions apply to non-profit entities. 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

"Promising, offering or giving" is met by "promises, offers or gives" 
"Directly or through an intermediary" is met by "directly or indirectly" 
"A person who in any capacity directs or works" is met by "any person who, in any capacity, 
directs or works" 
"For a private-sector entity" is met by "for a private sector entity" 
"An undue advantage of any kind" is met by "an undue advantage or exchange of any kind" 
"For that person or for a third party" is met by "for that person or a third party" 
"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" is met by 
"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties"  

EL 

meets 

the 

requirements 

of 

Art.2(1)(a) 

of 

the 

FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

"Directly or through an intermediary" is met by "directly or indirectly" 
"Requesting or receiving or accepting the promise of" is met by "requests or receives ... any 
undue advantage or the promise of such an advantage" 
"An undue advantage of any kind" is met by "an undue advantage" 
"For oneself or for a third party" is not addressed 
"While in any capacity directing or working" is met by "any person who directs or works" 
"For a private-sector entity" is met by "for private sector entities" 
"Perform  or  refrain  from  performing  any  act,  in  breach  of  that  person's  duties"  is  met  by 
"perform or refrain from performing any act in breach of his/her duties" 

EL partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

No mention of Article 2(2) of the FD is made in Greece's communication to the Commission, 
nor is there any mention of non-profit entities. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
There is insufficient information to assess whether EL meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of 
the FD. 

France 

FR provided the Commission with the relevant Articles of French legislation – Article 445-1 
and 445-2 of the criminal code. In addition to the observations made in the 2007 assessment, 
the  inclusion  of  third  party  advantage  for  this  report  entail  that  France  has  fully  transposed 
Art.2 of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

"For that person or for a third party" is met by "pour elle-même ou pour autrui" 

FR meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

"For that person or for a third party" is met by "pour elle-même ou pour autrui" 

FR meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

As  noted  in  the  2007  assessment,  the  scope  of  application  of  the  French  legislation  is 
sufficiently broad to encompass both profit and non-profit entities. 

FR meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of the FD. 

Italy 

IT  supplied  the  Commission  with  Article  2635  of  the  Civil  Code,  which  stipulates  criminal 
sanctions  for  private  section  corruption.  As  noted  in  the  2007  assessment,  a  number  of 
elements  of  FD  articles  are  not  fully  transposed  in  Italian  legislation.  Furthermore,  again  as 
noted previously, the overall context for these provisions is a situation in which private sector 
corruption  has  caused  harm  to  the  company  and,  accordingly,  only  the  person  sustaining  a 
loss can initiate a claim. 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

As noted in the 2007 report, the elements "offering," "through an intermediary," "works" and 
"for a third party" are not provided for in Italian legislation. 

IT partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
As noted in the 2007 report, the elements "through an intermediary," "for a third party" and 
"working" are not provided for in Italian legislation. 
Furthermore,  it  should  be  noted  that  "as  the  consequence  of  the  giving  or  promising  of  a 
benefit" does not appear sufficient to cover the element of "requesting" in the FD.  

IT partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

As noted in the 2007 assessment, no express mention of profit or non-profit entities is made in 
the Italian legislation forwarded to the Commission. 

There  is  insufficient  information  to  assess  whether  IT  meets  the  requirements  of  Art.2(2)  of 
the FD. 

Cyprus 

Section  4  of  Law  23(III)/2000  criminalizes  both  active  and  passive  bribery  in  the  private 
sector  and  explicitly  refers  to  Articles  7  and  8  of  the  Council  of  Europe  Criminal  Law 
Convention on Corruption, providing that the acts and conduct, which are referred to therein 
constitute  criminal  offences.  Thus,  all  the  elements  of  these  offences,  as  these  elements  are 
provided  by  the  Convention,  are  adopted  and  embodied  in  Cyprus  legal  system  and  in 
particular in Law 23(III)/2000.  

According to Section 2 of Cap. 161, the offence of passive and active corruption, without any 
distinction between the private and the public sector is also criminalized.  

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

CY  explicitly  refers  to  the  art.  7  of  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  Criminal  Law 
Convention on Corruption.  

CY meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

CY  explicitly  refers  to  the  art.  8  of  the  Council  of  Europe  Criminal  Law  Convention  on 
Corruption.  

CY the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

According to the information provided by CY there is no distinction between private sector 
entities (profit or non profit) and therefore CY legislation applies to business activities within 
profit and non-profit entities.  

CY meets the requirements of Art.2 (2) of the FD. 

Latvia 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
The Latvian authorities provided the Commission with the relevant extracts of the Criminal 
Law  pertaining  to  the  FD,  noting  that  Chapter  XIX  on  Criminal  Offences  in  the  National 
Economy transposes Art. 2 of the FD. LV informed the Commission that, since the previous 
assessment,  the  Criminal  Law  has  been  amended  more  than  ten  times.  Accordingly,  the 
constituent elements of Art.2 of the FD are discussed again below. This assessment indicates, 
as noted in 2007, that Art.2 remains only partly transposed in Latvian legislation. 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

The  provisions  on  active  corruption  are  contained  in  Section  199  of  the  Latvian  Criminal 
Law. 

"Promising,  offering  or  giving"  is  partially  addressed  by  "offers  or  gives  ...  if  the  offer  is 
accepted."  This  phrasing  omits  "promising"  and  appears  to  establish  a  limitation  on  the 
offence  (that  the  offer  or  promise  is  accepted) not  foreseen  in  the  FD.  Whether  or  not  such 
instances would be considered an attempted criminal offence under Section 15 of the Criminal 
Law remains unclear. 

"Directly or through an intermediary" is met by "personally or through intermediaries."  

"A person who in any capacity directs or works" is partially addressed through "a responsible 
employee ... or a person authorised." As was noted in the 2007 assessment, such a definition 
does not include all employees, and thus does not fully address "works."  

"For a private-sector entity" is met by "an undertaking (company) or organisation" 

"An undue advantage of any kind" is met by "material value, property or benefits of another 
nature" 

"For  that  person  or  for  a  third  party"  is  met  by  "irrespective  of  whether  the  material  value, 
property or benefits of another nature is intended for this or any other person" 

"Perform  or  refrain  from  performing  any  act,  in  breach  of  that  person's  duties"  is  met  by 
"using his or her authority in bad faith, performs or fails to perform some act in the interests 
of the giver of the benefit or he or she who proposed it". 

LV partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

"Directly or through an intermediary" is met by "him or herself or through an intermediary" 

"Requesting or receiving or accepting the promise of" is not fully met, as the provision reads 
"requests and receives," suggesting that an unfulfilled request or acceptance of a promise are 
not included in the offence definition 

"An undue advantage of any kind" is met through "property of material value or benefits of 
another nature" 

"For oneself or for a third party" is met through "irrespective of whether the material value, 
property or benefits of another nature received is intended for this or any other person" 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
"While  in  any  capacity  directing  or  working"  is  met  through  "an  employee  ...  or  another 
person  ...  authorised."  Unlike  the  case  in  active  corruption,  there  is  no  requirement  that  the 
person working is a responsible employee. 

"For a private-sector entity" is met by "an undertaking (company) or organisation" 

"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" is met by "for 
performing or failing to perform an act, in the interests of the giver of the benefit, using his or 
her authority in bad faith" 

LV partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

No  express  mention  of  profit  or  non-profit  entities  is  made  in  the  Latvian  legislation. 
However, the reference to an "undertaking (company) or organisation" could be broad enough 
to also encompass non-profit entities. 

There is insufficient information to assess whether LT meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of 
the FD. 

Luxembourg 

LU  made  reference  to  the  law  of  23  May  2005,  communicated  to  the  Commission  for  the 
previous  evaluation  and  of  a  draft  law  establishing  criminal  liability  of  legal  persons  and 
amending the Criminal Code being examined by the Conséil d'Etat since 2007. Since then, the 
law was adopted (law of 3 March 2010 on criminal liability of legal persons).  

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

In  the  2007  report,  LU  was  considered  as  not  fully  addressing  the  elements  of  "giving," 
"works"  or  "private  sector."  Further  analysis  allows  concluding  that  these  elements  are 
covered  respectively  by  the  art.  301-1  of  the  Criminal  Code  "proposer  (…)  une  offre,  une 
promesse  ou  un  avantage  de  toute  nature…  and  "une  personne  qui  a  la  qualité 
d’administrateur  ou  de  gérant  d’une  personne  morale,  de  mandataire  ou  de  préposé  d’une 
personne morale ou physique".  

LU limits the scope of the art. 2 to situations where the employer is not aware and does not 
approve the criminal behaviour. It is not foreseen by the FD.  

LU partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

In the 2007 report, LU was not considered as properly addressing the elements "works" and 
"private  sector".  Further  analysis  (see  above)  allows  concluding  that  these  provisions  are 
covered. However, additional clarifications and comments from LU in this respect would be 
welcomed.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
In addition, LU limits the scope of the art. 2 to situations where the employer is not aware and 
does not approve the criminal behaviour. It is not foreseen by the FD.  

LU partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

No express mention of profit or non-profit entities is made. The concept of legal entity and of 
a  non  profit  organization  allow  to  suppose  that  non  profit  entities  are  covered,  but  the 
Commission invites Luxembourg to provide more clarifications in this respect.  

At this stage, there is insufficient information to assess whether LU meets the requirements of 
Art.2(2) of the FD. 

Hungary 

HU informed the Commission that Art.2(1) of the FD is transposed by the means of articles 
251,  252  and  254  of  the  criminal  code.  HU  also  provided  the  Commission  with  further 
explanations  with  reference  to  the  2007  assessment,  which  are  addressed  below.  In  view  of 
these explanations, HU has partly transposed Art.2 of the FD. 

Art.2(1)(a) – active corruption 

"Promising, offering or giving" is partly met by "granting or promising." This wording does 
not appear to make offering an undue advantage an offence in and of itself. 

"Directly or through an intermediary" - the Commission understands that this provision could 
be  fully  covered  in  connection  with  the  provision  on  complicity  in  the  Criminal  Code. 
However, clarification would be welcomed as to how these provisions transpose the FD.  

It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  offence  definition  is  not  limited  to  the  private  sector,  but 
extends  to  "budgetary  authority,  business  or  social  organisation."  The  private  sector 
corruption does not generally require the existence of a business relation, in addition, private 
sector  corruption  is  not  only  linked  to  bribery  but  also  covers  trading  in  influence  (section 
256, paragraph 3 and 4), at least as regards the passive side of this offence. As such, HU goes 
beyond the minimum requirements of the FD. 

HU noted that its reference to "breach his/her obligations" is wider than the FD "perform or 
refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties," but that it also includes the 
FD requirement. This element is thus covered by HU legislation. 

HU partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Art.2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

"Directly or through an intermediary" (see the discussion above).  

In 2007, "for oneself or for a third party" was considered as not addressed in the provisions 
submitted by HU. It appears to be transposed by "entering into an agreement….". However, 
further clarification as to that interpretation is needed.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" is met through 
"breaching his/her obligations" 

HU partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) the FD. 

Art.2(2) 

There  is  no  specific  provision  for  non-profit  activities,  but  the  relevant  article  mentions 
"budget authority, business or social organization". The Hungarian authorities informed that 
the term "social organization" transposes exactly the definition of non-profit organizations. 

HU meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of the FD. 

Malta 

The  concordance  table  provided  by  MT  includes  Articles  121(3)  and  121D  of  the  Criminal 
Code, which extend the crime of corruption to the private sector. Furthermore, these articles 
only relate to passive corruption. Art.120 (1) defines this offence, but was not mentioned by 
the  Maltese  authorities  as  relevant.  The  Commission  has  considered  the  provisions  of 
legislation  not  expressly  mentioned  by  MT,  but  would  require  further  clarification  on  the 
matter. 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

"Promising, offering or giving" is addressed in "any reward or promise or offer" of Art.115 of 
the Criminal Code, given its application through articles120 (1) (relating Art.115 to the 
private sector) and 121(3) (relating Art.115 to active corruption). 

"Directly  or  through  an  intermediary"  is  covered  by  "directly  or  through  an  intermediary" 
mentioned  in  Art.121(3),  Criminal  Code  –  given  the  fact  that  the  scope  of  Art.120(1)  on 
active  corruption  extends  to  articles  115-118  "in  accordance  with  any  provision  under  this 
Code or under any other law." 

"A person who in any capacity directs or works" is covered by "directing or working in any 
capacity"  of  Art.121(3),  if  this  applies  to  active  corruption  (see  discussion  on  the  scope  of 
Art.120(1) above). 

"For a private-sector entity" appears to be covered by "in the private sector" of Art.121(3), if 
this applies to active corruption (see discussion on the scope of Art.120(1) above). 

"An undue advantage of any kind" appears to be covered by "any reward in money or other 
valuable consideration or of any other advantage" of Art.115 of the Criminal Code, given its 
application  through  articles120(1)  (relating  it  to active  corruption)  and  121(3)  (relating  it  to 
the private sector). 

"For that person or for a third party" appears to be covered by "for himself or for any other 
person"  of  Art.115  of  the  Criminal  Code,  in  light  of  Art.120(1)  (relating  it  to  active 
corruption) and 121(3) (relating it to the private sector). 

"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" appear to be 
covered by "to do what he is in duty bound to do" (Art.115(a), Criminal Code), "to forbear 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
from doing what he is in duty bound to do" (Art.115(b), Criminal Code) and "in breach of his 
duties"  (Art.121(3),  Criminal  Code)  when  interpreted  in  conjunction  with  Art.120(1), 
Criminal Code. 

MT meets the requirements of Art.2 (1)(a), FD 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

"Directly  or  through  an  intermediary"  is  met  by  "directly  or  through  an  intermediary" 
(Art.121(3), Criminal Code). 

"Requesting  or  receiving  or  accepting  the  promise  of"  is  covered  by  "requests,  receives,  or 
accepts" (Art.115, Criminal Code). 

"An  undue  advantage  of  any  kind"  is  covered  by  "any  reward  in  money  or  other  valuable 
consideration or of any other advantage" (Art.115, Criminal Code). 

"For oneself or for a third party" is covered by "for himself or for any other person" (Art.115, 
Criminal Code). 

"While in any capacity directing or working" is covered by "when directing or working in any 
capacity" (Art.121(3), Criminal Code). 

"For a private-sector entity" is covered by "in the private sector" (Art.121(3), Criminal Code). 

"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" is covered by 
"to do what he is in duty bound to do" (Art.115(a), Criminal Code), "to forbear from doing 
what  he  is  in  duty  bound  to  do"  (Art.115(b),  Criminal  Code)  and  "in  breach  of  his  duties" 
(Art.121(3), Criminal Code) 

MT meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

Maltese legislation does not mention non-profit activities; the legislation applies generically 
to "a natural or legal person operating in the private sector 

There is insufficient information to assess whether MT meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of 
the FD. 

Netherlands 

NL supplied the Commission with the relevant articles of national legislation (Article 328ter, 
Criminal  Code,  subsequently  amended),  as  well  as  a  commentary  on  the  2007  assessment, 
making reference to established case law. These provisions are discussed below.  

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

In  the  2007  assessment,  the  Commission  noted  that  Dutch  legislation  did  not  cover  the 
element  of  "offering"  in  active  corruption.  NL  informs  the  Commission  that,  a  submitted 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
amendment  proposal  includes  this  provision  in  the  Criminal  Code.  This  new  provision 
includes  "offering".  The  Commission  notes  that  in  the  meantime  the  law  has  been  adopted, 
therefore this requirement is met.  

In the 2007, the Commission observed a lack of provisions for "through an intermediary." NL 
explained that,  as established by case law, this is indeed the  meaning of the legislation. NL 
thus meets the requirement of this provision. 

The  Commission  enquired,  in  the  previous  assessment,  whether  the  "gift"  and  "promise"  in 
Dutch  legislation  cover  "undue  advantage  of  any  kind."  NL  explained  that  this  is  the 
interpretation in case law, and NL is thus deemed to meet this requirement. 

Similarly,  NL  explains  that,  while  the  law  makes  no  explicit  reference  to  third  party 
advantage,  established  case  law  indicates  that  this  is  the  case.  NL  meets  the  requirement  of 
third party advantage. 

However,  the  Commission's  final  remark,  that  Dutch  law  introduces  a  specific  limitation  – 
that the offence not be declared to the employer or principal – which is not foreseen in the FD 
has  not  been  addressed.  Hence  NL  is  considered  to  partly  meet  the  requirements  of 
Art.2(1)(a). 

NL partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

As  discussed  above  with  reference  to  active  corruption,  NL  clarified  that  the  role  of 
intermediaries,  the  inclusion  of  "undue  advantage  of  any  kind"  and  the  possibility  of  third 
party advantage are contained in Dutch case law and thus meet these requirements of the FD. 

"Requesting" is covered by the amended provisions contained in the art. 328ter. 

As noted with regard to the definition of active corruption, the requirement that the advantage 
be  concealed  from  the  employer  or  principal  is  narrower  than  the  provisions  of  the  FD  and 
does thus not meet fully its requirements. 

NL partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) of the FD.  

Article 2(2) 

As noted in the 2007 assessment, 

NL meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of the FD. 

Austria 

AT informed the Commission that articles 168c, d and e; 153 and 153a; and 304 to 308 of the 
Criminal Code as well as Article 10 of the Law on Unfair Competition transpose Article 2 of 
the FD. As noted in the 2007 assessment, articles 304 to 308 of the Criminal Code appear to 
relate to public sector corruption only and thus were not assessed. In view of the legislation 
provided, AT appears to have partly transposed Art.2 of the FD. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

The  provisions  relating  to  the  elements  "through  an  intermediary"  and  "directs"  in  active 
corruption  do  not  appear  to  have  changed  since  the  2007  assessment,  leading  to  the 
conclusion that they have not been fully transposed.  

It  should  also  be  noted  that  AT  issued  a  declaration  under  Art.2(3),  limiting  the  scope  of 
application  of  Art.2(1).  The  declaration  is  not  valid  anymore;  therefore  the  scope  of  the 
application of this article should be widened.  

AT partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

Similarly  to  what  was  noted  in  the  2007  assessment  and  discussed  above  with  reference  to 
active corruption, Austrian legislation only partly meets the elements "intermediary," "undue 
advantage  of  any  kind"  and  "perform  or  refrain  from  performing  any  act,  in  breach  of  that 
person's duties." 

"Requesting or receiving or accepting the promise of" is met by "requests, receives or accepts 
the promise of." 

The  provision  "a  servant  or  agent"  does  not  appear  to  address  the  full  scope  of  "directs." 
However,  it  appears  that  this  element  is  included  in  Art.3(4)  of  the  Law  on  the  liability  of 
associations,  which  notes  that  "[A]n  association's  liability  for  an  act  and  the  possibility  of 
punishing  decision-makers  or  employees  on  account  of  the  same  act  shall  not  be  mutually 
exclusive." 

"For oneself or for a third party" is covered by "for himself or a third party" (Art.169c). 

AT partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

Art. 168c and 168d refer to corruption in the scope of business activities. It is unclear whether 
the offence definition extends to business activities within non-profit entities also. 

There is insufficient information to assess whether AT meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of 
the FD. 

Poland 

Poland provided the Commission with Article 296a (1) of the Criminal code, which defines 
passive corruption. However, the Commission understands that active corruption is likewise 
an offence under Article 296a(2), the Article 115 covers the element of third party advantage 
and art 18(1) and (3) and 19(1) cover the liability of the intermediary.  

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

"Promising, offering or giving" – in 2007 assessment the element "offering" was considered 
not  covered  by  "gives  a  material  or  personal  benefit  or  a  promise  thereof"  (Art.296a(2), 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
Criminal  Code).  However  Polish  authorities  explained  that  this  article  is  interpreted  as 
covering offers as well. In the light of this explanation, this provision is considered to be met.  

"Directly or through an intermediary" did not appear to be covered in 2007. PL explains that 
although art 296a does not cover the liability of the intermediary, this liability is provided for 
in the general part of the Criminal Code. Depending on the form of intermediary activity and 
the  extent  of  his  involvement  in  the  offence,  the  intermediary  may  be  liable  for  aiding  and 
abetting or as an accomplice. Therefore the art 296a is to be read in conjunction with articles 
18(1)  and  (3)  and  19  (1)  of  the  Criminal  Code.  In  light  of  the  above  the  provision  is 
considered to be met.  

"A  person  who  in  any  capacity  directs  or  works"  is  covered  by  "Persons  who  perform  a 
leading  function  ...  or  who  are  employed  by  or  working  under  a  fee-for-task  agreement  or 
service contract" (Art.296a (1), Criminal Code). 

"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" was considered 
in 2007 as partly covered by "behaviour which may cause material losses to that organisation, 
an act of unfair competition or inadmissible preferential action." PL explains that the concept 
of behaviour contained in the art 296a covers both action and omission (including refraining 
from  action)  which  lead  to  a  situation  in  which  the  economic  entity  is  exposed  to  material 
loss. This explanation allows to conclude that the "refraining" is addressed in PL legislation. 
However, while PL made a declaration under Art.2(3), such a declaration is no longer valid, 
and  Polish  legislation  thus  does  not  cover  the  more  comprehensive  scope  of  "any  act,  in 
breach of that person's duties."  

PL partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

"Requesting or receiving or accepting the promise of" is covered by "requests, receives such 
benefits or accepts the promise thereof"  

"While in any capacity directing or working" is covered by "Persons who perform a leading 
function  ...  or  who  are  employed  by  or  working  under  a  fee-for-task  agreement  or  service 
contract." 

"Perform  or  refrain  from  performing  any  act,  in  breach  of  that  person's  duties"  is  partly 
covered (see the discussion above on active corruption). 

PL partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

Art. 296a of the Criminal Code relates to "organisation[s] engaging in economic activity." In 
2007 the Commission was not in a position to assess the conformity of this provision with the 
FD,  due  to  lack  of  additional  information.  PL  explains  that  the  Act  on  the  freedom  of 
economic  activity  provides  that  any  entity  conducting  gainful  activity  OR  organized 
professional  activity  is  an  undertaking.  The  undertaking  does  not  have  to  make  profit,  and 
therefore the art 296a applies equally to non-profit entities as far as they engage in economic 
activity.  Further  analysis  of  PL  legal  framework  allows  to  conclude  that  the  requirement  of 
the art 2 (2) is met.  

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
PL meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of the FD. 

Portugal 

PT  states  that  it  has  transposed  this  Article  by  means  of  Articles  4,  8  and  9  of  Law  No 
20/2008 of 21 April and Articles 4, 5, 26 and 27 of the Criminal Code. Bearing in mind the 
assessment made in 2007 the Commission offers the following additional comments: 

Article 2.1 (a) active corruption 

Article 9 of Law No 20/2008 criminalises active corruption in the private sector.  

- "offers or promises" omits the aspect of "giving". However, following explanations provided 
by PT, the Commission understands that the words prometer and dar that are contained in the 
original text cover promising, offering or giving.  

PT meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2.1 (b) passive corruption 

Article 8 of Law No 20/2008 criminalises passive corruption in the private sector. It covers all 
the elements of the offence, similarly to the provisions of the art 41-B of the Decree-Law No. 
28/84 assessed in 2007 (repealed by currently assessed text).  

PT meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2.2 

In 2007, in the context of Article 1 of the Framework Decision, PT informed the Commission 
that  Portuguese  law  did  not  contain  a  separate  definition  of  "legal  person",  but  that  legal 
person was defined by a number of Articles, including Article 157, Civil Code which provides 
for  associations  which  do  not  have  for  their  object  the  profit  of  the  partners,  social 
foundations and similar bodies. 

In  addition,  the  art  2e  of  the  Law  No  20/2008  states  that  private  sector  entity  shall  be 
understood as a private law legal person, a civil company and a de facto association.  

PT meets the requirements of Art 2.2 of the FD. 

Article 2.3 

PT does not make a declaration 

Romania 

The provisions RO provided in its transposition table refer to corruption of "civil servants" – a 
wide  definition,  encompassing,  according  to  Art.  147  of  the  Criminal  Code,  both  public 
officials and "any other employee fulfilling a duty in the interest of a legal entity." Articles 
254,  255  and  258  of  the  Romanian  Criminal  Code  relate  to  Art.2(1)  of  the  FD.  Given  the 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
absence  of  mention  of  third  party  advantage  in  the  Romanian  legislation,  the  Commission 
considers that  

RO only partly meets the requirements of Art.2 of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

"Promising, offering or giving" is covered by "Promising, offering or giving" (Art.255). 

"Directly or through an intermediary" is covered by "directly or indirectly" (Art.254). 

"A person who in any capacity directs or works" is covered by the definition of civil servant 
as "any other employee fulfilling a duty in the interest of a legal entity" (Art.147). 

"For a private-sector entity" is incorporated in the wide scope of "legal entity," to which these 
provisions apply. 

"An undue advantage of any kind" is covered by "money or other gains which are undue to 
that person" (Art.254). 

"For that person or for a third party" appears to be only partly covered, as no reference to third 
party advantage is made. 

"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" is covered by 
"to commit, not to commit or delay the commitment of an act with regard to its duties or in 
order to commit an act contrary to such duties." (Art.254). 

RO partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

"Directly or through an intermediary" is covered by "directly or indirectly" (Art.254). 

"Requesting or receiving or accepting the promise of" is covered by "claims or receives ... or 
accepts the promise... or does not reject" (Art.254). 

"An undue advantage of any kind" is covered by "money or other gains which are undue to 
that person" (Art.254). 

"For oneself or for a third party" appears to be only partly covered, as no reference to third 
party advantage is made. 

"While in any capacity directing or working" is covered by the definition of civil servant as 
"any other employee fulfilling a duty in the interest of a legal entity" (Art.147). 

"For a private-sector entity" is incorporated in the wide scope of "legal entity," to which these 
provisions apply. 

RO partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
RO explained that the provisions for private sector corruption, referring to any civil servants, 
encompasses  all  legal  entities  and  thus  makes  no  difference  between  profit  and  non-profit 
entities. The legislation applies to both. 

RO meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of the FD. 

Article 2.3 

RO does not make a declaration 

Slovenia 

SI  informed  the  Commission  that  since  2007  its  legislation  had  undergone  amendments  in 
November 2008, and forwarded the relevant provisions – Articles 241 and 242 – of the new 
Criminal  Code  (KZ-1)  with  explanatory  comments.  Given  the  ambiguity  over  whether 
Slovenian legislation addresses the full scope of "perform or refrain from performing any act, 
in  breach  of  that  person's  duties,"  the  Commission  considers  that  SI  partly  meets  the 
requirements of Art.2 of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

"Promising, offering or giving" is covered by "promises, offers or gives." 

"Directly  or  through  an  intermediary"  is  covered.  Although  no  direct  reference  to 
intermediary is contained in the provisions SI cited as relevant to Art.2(1), Art. 20(1) of the 
Criminal Code states that "A perpetrator of a criminal offence is whoever commits a criminal 
offence personally or by using and directing another (indirect perpetrator)." 

"A person who in any capacity directs or works" is subsumed under the broad concept of "a 
person performing an economic activity." 

"For a private-sector entity" is covered under "economic activity." 

"An undue advantage of any kind" appears to be covered by "an unlawful award, gift or other 
benefit." 

"For that person or for a third party" is covered by "for his benefit or the benefit of another." 

"Perform  or  refrain  from  performing  any  act,  in  breach  of  that  person's  duties":  there  is  no 
specific  mention  whether  the  offence  could  be  committed  also  by  omission.  However,  the 
notions  of  "concluding  or  maintaining  a  transaction  or  other  unlawful  benefit  by  neglecting 
the interests of the organisation or causing it damage" seem broad enough to cover not only 
"performing" but also "refraining from act". According to SI explanations, Article 17 of the SI 
Criminal Code is relevant in this respect. According to this article the criminal offence may be 
committed not only by voluntary act,  but  also by omission. This general provision also refers 
to  Articles  241    and    242    on    which    the  offences  Unauthorised  Acceptance  of  Gifts  and 
Unauthorised  Giving  of  Gifts could  be  committed also by omission. Breach of duty is not 
expressly mentioned, however SI explains that it is defined as an element of the offence in the 
art  241  and  242  (neglecting  the  interests  of  the  organization,  favor  in  exchange  of  a 
transaction or service, giving/obtaining advantages or conclude a transaction).  

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
SI meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

"Directly  or  through  an  intermediary"  is  covered.  Although  no  direct  reference  to 
intermediary is contained in the provisions SI cited as relevant to Art.2(1), Art. 20(1) of the 
Criminal Code states that "A perpetrator of a criminal offence is whoever commits a criminal 
offence personally or by using and directing another (indirect perpetrator)." 

"Requesting or receiving or accepting the promise of" is covered by "requests or accepts an 
[advantage] or a promise or an offer of such a benefit." 

"An undue advantage of any kind" appears to be covered by "an unlawful award, gift or other 
benefit." 

"For oneself or for a third party" is covered by "for himself or another." 

"While in any capacity directing or working" is covered by "a person performing an economic 
activity." 

"For a private-sector entity" is likewise subsumed under "economic activity." 

"Perform  or  refrain  from  performing  any  act,  in  breach  of  that  person's  duties"  -  see 
discussion above.  

SI meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

SI  explained  that,  on  the  basis  of  the  Companies  Act,  companies  may  pursue  profit  and, 
partially,  also  non-profit  activities.  It  is  however  not  clear  to  which  extent  this  provision 
covers  a  situation  of  a  non  profit  organization  engaging  in  a  business  activity.  The  SI  is 
invited to provide more clarification on this issue.  

There is insufficient information to assess whether SI meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of the 
FD. 

Slovak Republic 

SK  forwarded  the  amended  provisions  of  its  Criminal  Code  as  they  relate  to  the  FD.  These 
provisions  appear  to  cover  the  majority  of  the  requirements  of  the  FD,  albeit  some 
ambiguities  persist.  Overall,  the  provisions  supplied  relate  to  breaches  in  connection  with 
"employment, job, status or function." While these appear to cover private sector entities, both 
profit  and  non-profit,  further  clarification  could  serve  to  affirm  this  observation.  Given  the 
lack  of  reference  to  "offering,"  and  pending  clarification  on  the  application  of  the  offence 
definition to non-profit entities, SK partly meets the requirements of Art.2 of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

"Promising, offering or giving" is partly covered by "gives ... or promises to give" in Section 
332(1). While Sections 333(1), 334(1) and 335(1) include the element of offering, these relate 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
to general interest procurement, foreign public office holders and employees of international 
organizations and thus fall outside the scope of this FD. 

"Directly  or  through  an  intermediary"  is  covered  by  "directly  or  through  an  intermediary" 
(Section 332(1)). 

"A person who in any capacity directs or works" appears to be covered by "to another person 
... in breach of his duties arising in connection with his employment, job, status or function" 
(Section 332(1)). 

"For a private-sector entity" appears to be covered by the provision sited above. 

"An undue advantage of any kind" is covered by the definition of a bribe according to Section 
131(3): "an item or other consideration of a pecuniary or non-pecuniary nature, to which there 
is no legal entitlement."  

"For  that  person  or  for  a  third  party"  appears  to  be  covered  by  "gives  a  bribe  ...  to  another 
person ... or give a bribe ... to another person to that end" (Section 332(1)). 

"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" is covered by 
"to act or refrain from action in breach of the duties arising in connection with his 
employment, job, status or function" (Section 332(1)). 

SK partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

"Directly  or  through  an  intermediary"  is  covered  by  "directly  or  through  an  intermediary" 
(Section 328(1)). 

"Requesting  or  receiving  or  accepting  the  promise  of"  is  covered  by  "accepts  or  requests  a 
bribe or requests the promise thereof" (Section 328(1)). 

"An undue advantage of any kind" is covered by the definition of a bribe according to Section 
131(3): "an item or other consideration of a pecuniary or non-pecuniary nature, to which there 
is no legal entitlement." 

"For  oneself  or  for  a  third  party"  is  covered  by  "for  himself  or  for  a  third  person"  (Section 
328(1)). 

"While in any capacity directing or working" appears to be covered by "in connection with his 
employment, job, status or function" (Section 328(1)). 

"For a private-sector entity" appears to be covered by the provision sited above. 

"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" is covered by 
to act or refrain from action in breach of the duties arising in connection with his employment, 
job, status or function" (Section 328(1)). 

SK meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
Article 2(2) 

No  specific  mention  of  for  profit  and  non  profit  entities  was  made.  It  seems  that  the  vague 
wording of duties in relation to "employment, job, status or function" would also cover these, 
but clarification on the matter is needed. 

There is insufficient information to assess whether SK meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of 
the FD. 

Finland 

Though not indicating legislative changes since the previous assessment, FI provided a more 
detailed  explanation  of  its  transposition  of  the  FD.  While  the  explanations  offered  by  FI 
would have benefited from more detailed references regarding their bases, FI appears to have 
transposed the provisions of Art.2 of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

As  noted  in  the  2007  assessment,  FI  meets  the  FD  requirements  "promising,  offering  or 
giving,"  "a  person  who  in  any  capacity  directs  or  works,"  "private  sector  entity,"  "for  that 
person or for a third party" and "perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that 
person's duties." 

As  regards  the  requirement  "directly  or  through  an  intermediary,"  in  the  2007  report  COM 
noted that it  was  unclear whether Finnish legislation criminalized  the  bribe giver as well as 
intermediary. FI explained that the legislation should be interpreted so that the intermediary is 
an accessory to the crime (if intent is present) and the person providing the bribe as the bribe 
giver  although  this  is  not  explicit  in  the  provisions  cited.  FI  thus  appears  to  meet  this 
requirement of the FD. 

With reference to the definition in Finnish law "an undue advantage (bribe)," FI informs that a 
bribe can be a material or immaterial advantage. FI thus appears to meet the requirement "an 
undue advantage of any kind." 

FI meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD. 

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

FI was found, in the 2007 assessment, to meet the FD requirements "for oneself or for a third 
party," "while in any capacity directing or working," "private sector entity" and "perform or 
refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties." 

As  discussed  above  with  reference  to  active  corruption,  FI  explained  that  accepting  undue 
advantages is criminalized both when the bribe is given directly and when it is given through 
an intermediary, though this is not explicitly specified in the provisions cited. FI thus appears 
to meet the requirement "directly or through an intermediary." 

Finnish  legislation  criminalizes  requesting  a  bribe,  taking  an  initiative  towards  receiving  a 
bribe, or receiving or accepting a bribe. FI is thus deemed to meet the requirement "requesting 
or receiving ... or accepting the promise of." 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
As discussed above with reference to active corruption, FI explained that a bribe can be either 
material or immaterial advantage and that the definition "undue advantage (bribe)" in active 
corruption (Section 7, Chapter 30, Criminal Code) and "bribe" in passive corruption (Section 
8,  Chapter  30,  Criminal  Code)  are  identical.  FI  thus  appears  to  meet  the  requirement  "an 
undue advantage of any kind." 

FI meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

FI informed that the word "business" covers both for profit and non-profit activities, without 
providing further details. 

FI appears to meet the requirements of Art.2(2) of the FD. 

Sweden 

SE  informed  the  Commission  that,  although  the  relevant  legislation  has  undergone  certain 
amendments since the last assessment, no measures had been taken to implement the FD other 
than  those  set  out  in  Sweden's  notification  in  2005.  SE  attached  certain  provisions  in  their 
current wording, albeit not those pertaining to Art.2. As such, the observations of the 2007 on 
Swedish transposition of Art.2 of the FD remain valid. 

SE partly meets the requirements of Art.2(1) of the FD. 

No further clarification on the definition of a "legal person" was offered. 

There is insufficient information to assess whether SE meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of 
the FD. 

United Kingdom 

The  UK  Prevention  of  Corruption  Acts  (1889-1916),  which  have  been  cited  to  the 
Commission  in  previous  communications,  have  recently  been  repealed  by  the  2010  Bribery 
Act.  Although  UK  did  not  notify  these  changes  to  the  Commission,  the  analysis  below 
pertains to the new Bribery Act 2010. 

Article 2(1)(a) – active corruption 

"Promising,  offering  or  giving"  is  met  by  "offers,  promises  or  gives"  (Article  1(2)(a)  and 
Article 1(3)(a)).  

"Directly or through an intermediary" is covered by "it does not matter whether the advantage 
is offered, promised or given ... directly or through a third party" (Article 1(5)). 

"A person who in any capacity directs or works" is covered by the offence definition covering 
"any activity connected with a business," "any activity performed in the course of a person's 
employment"  and  "any  activity  performed  by  or  on  behalf  of  a  body  of  persons  (whether 
corporate or unincorporated)" (Article 3(2)(b)-(d)).  

"For a private-sector entity" is covered by the provisions cited above relating to working and 
directing. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
"An  undue  advantage  of  any  kind"  is  covered  by  "a  financial  or  other  advantage"  (Article 
1(2)(a) and 1(3)(a)). 

"For that person or for a third party" is covered by "it does not matter whether the person to 
whom  the  advantage  is  offered,  promised  or  given  is  the  same  as  the  person  who  is  to 
perform, or has performed, the function or activity concerned" (Article 1(4)). 

"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" is covered by 
"perform improperly a relevant function or activity" (Article 1(2)-(3)). "Improperly" is 
defined in Article 4, which refers to an activity performed or not performed in breach of 
relevant expectations. 

UK meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(a) of the FD.  

Article 2(1)(b) – passive corruption 

"Directly or through an intermediary" is covered by "it does not matter ... whether R requests, 
agrees  to  receive  or  accepts  ...  the  advantage  directly  or  through  a  third  party"  (Article 
2(6)(a)). 

"Requesting  or  receiving  or  accepting  the  promise  of"  is  covered  by  "requests,  agrees  to 
receive or accepts" (Article 2). 

"An undue advantage of any kind" is covered by "a financial or other advantage" (Article 2). 

"For oneself or for a third party" is covered by "it does not matter ... whether the advantage is 
(or is to be) for the benefit of R or another person" (Article 2(6)(b)). 

"While  in  any  capacity  directing  or  working"  is  covered  by  the  offence  definition  covering 
"any activity connected with a business," "any activity performed in the course of a person's 
employment"  and  "any  activity  performed  by  or  on  behalf  of  a  body  of  persons  (whether 
corporate or unincorporate)" (Article 3(2)(b)-(d)). 

" For a private-sector entity" is covered by the provisions cited above relating to working and 
directing. 

"Perform or refrain from performing any act, in breach of that person's duties" is covered by 
"perform  improperly  a  relevant  function  or  activity"  (Article  2).  "Improperly"  is  defined  in 
Article  4,  which  refers  to  an  activity  performed  or  not  performed  in  breach  of  relevant 
expectations. 

UK meets the requirements of Art.2(1)(b) of the FD. 

Article 2(2) 

The wide range of functions to which the Bribery Act pertains, enumerated in Article 3(2) - 
"any activity connected with a business," "any activity performed in the course of a person's 
employment"  and  "any  activity  performed  by  or  on  behalf  of  a  body  of  persons  (whether 
corporate  or  unincorporated)"  –  is  sufficiently  broad  to  cover  both  profit  and  non-profit 
sectors. 

UK meets the requirements of Art.2(2) of the FD. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
1.2. 

Article 3 – Instigation, aiding and abetting 

1.2.1.  General comments 

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

1.2.2. 

Summary table of the transposing legislation adopted by Member States 

Measures  which  appeared  relevant  to 
Commission's  analysis  (where  different 
to MS' citations) 

MS 

Legislation 

BE  

Art. 66 – 69 Criminal Code 

BG 

CZ 

Art. 20-21 penal code 

140/1961 Crime Act 

Section 24 of act 40/2009, Criminal Code 

DK 
(2007) 

No reply 

Sections  23  and  299(2),  Criminal  Code 
(2007 report) 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

Sections 26, 27 Criminal Code 

Art. 22, 24 and 60 Criminal Code  

Section  1(1)  to  1(3)  of  the  1906  Act 
(inserted by section 2 of the Act of 2001), 
in  conjunction  with  section  7(1)  of  the 
Criminal  Law  Act  1997  and  section  22  of 
the  Petty  Sessions  (Ireland)  Act  1851. 
Section  7(1)  of  the  Criminal  Law  Act 
1997. 

Section  22  of  the  petty  Sessions  (Ireland) 
Act  1851  (  the  same  provision  as  section 
7(1) in respect of minor offences) 

Art. 45,46,47,48,49 Criminal Code 

No reply 

FR  

Articles 121-6, 121-7, Criminal Code 

IT 

CY 

LV 

Section 110, 115 and 378, Criminal Code 

Law 23 (III)/2000 

Chapter  I  and  Chapter  II  of  the  General 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
part "Criminal Offences" 

LT 
(2007) 

No reply 

Articles  22-26,  Criminal  Code 
report) 

(2007 

LU  

No specific provisions 

Articles 66,67 Criminal Code 

HU 

Art. 19, 21 act IV of 1978 on the Criminal 
Code  

MT  

Art. 41, 42 cap. 9 Criminal Code 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

No specific provisions 

Sections 47,48, 48a Criminal Code 

No specific provisions 

Section 12,15, code of Criminal Procedure 
as indicated in the previous report 

Art. 13, 18 Criminal Code 

Articles 26, 27 Criminal Code 

RO 

Articles 25, 26 Criminal Code 

SI 

Article  37,  38,39,  40  General  part  of  the 
Criminal Code 

Articles 241 242 Criminal Code 

SK 

FI 

Section 14, 19, 20, 21, 337 criminal code 

Criminal code, chapter 5, section 5 and 6 

SE  

Chapter 23, chapter 4, Criminal Code 

UK  

A:  with  respect  to  England,  Wales  and 
Northern Ireland: section 8 accessories and 
abettors act 1861. 

B:  with  respect  to  Scotland:  criminal 
procedure act, 1995 

1.2.3. 

Summary account of the transposition 

The overall level of transposition was already high in 2007, when 18 MS have transposed this 
Article. Currently all 26 MS (except ES which did not supply any information) are compliant 
with the provisions of Article 3. Those countries which did not provide any or provided scarce 
information,  but  found  compliant  in  2007  evaluation  are  still  considered  as  fully  compliant. 
The Commission assumed that no changes have occurred in their legislation.  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Summary table of transposition 

MS  Comments 

BE   BE meets the requirements  

BG  BG meets the requirements. 

CZ 

CZ meets the requirements. 

DK  DK  did  not  submit  a  response,  but  was  found  to  meet  the  requirements  in  the  2007 

report. 

DE  DE meets the requirements. 

EE 

EE meets the requirements. 

IE 

IE meets the requirements. 

EL 

EL meets the requirements 

ES 

- 

FR  

FR meets the requirements. 

IT 

IT meets the requirements. 

CY  CY meets the requirements  

LV 

LV meets the requirements. 

LT 

LT did not submit a response, but was found to meet the requirements in the 2007 report. 

LU   LU  did  not  submit  specific  provisions,  but  was  found  to  meet  the  requirements  in  the 

2007 report. 

HU  HU meets the requirements. 

MT   MT meets the requirements. 

NL  NL  did  not  submit  specific  provisions,  but  was  found  to  meet  the  requirements  in  the 

2007 report. 

AT  AT  did  not  submit  specific  provisions,  but  was  found  to  meet  the  requirements  in  the 

2007 report. 

PL 

PL meets the requirements. 

PT 

PT meets the requirements  

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
RO  RO meets the requirements. 

SI 

SI meets the requirements. 

SK 

SK meets the requirements. 

FI 

FI meets the requirements. 

SE  

SE meets the requirements. 

UK  

(1) England, Wales and Northern Ireland : appear to meet the requirements (legislation 
was not provided). 

(2) Scotland appears to meet the requirements (as well the text of the legislation was not 
provided). 

1.2.4.  Analysis of Member States  

Belgium  

BE informed that the art 3 is transposed by the art 66 to 69 of the Penal Code. These articles 
in  criminal  acts,  co-operation,  aid,  assistance,  use  of 
criminalize  participation 
gifts/promises/threats, and abuse of authority or power.  

BE meets the requirements of Article 3 

Bulgaria 

The  art  20  and  art  21  of  the  Criminal  code  clearly  delineates  the  difference  between 
perpetrator,  instigator  and  accessory  person  and  the  penalties  are  allocated  taking  into 
consideration the nature and the degree of their participation to the deed.  

BG meets the requirements of Article 3 

Czech Republic 

CZ  stated  that  it  had  transposed  this  article  by  means  of  article  140/1061  Crime  Act  and 
section 24 of Act n. 40/2009 of the new Criminal Code (legislation effective as of 1 January 
2010). Both Crime Act 40/1961 and Section 24 of Act 40/2009 relate to organizer, instigator 
and aider. An organizer is someone who devises or controls the committing of the offence; an 
instigator  may  involve  someone  encouraging  someone  else  to  decide  to  commit  an  offence. 
An aider is someone who allows or facilitates the offences, particularly by procuring funds, 
removing obstacles, luring the victim to the scene of the offence, acting as lookout during the 
offence, providing advice, hardening resolve, or promising to contribute after the offence. 

A party's criminal liability may cease if the person voluntarily refrains from further abetting in 
a criminal offence. Where an offence involves more than one person, this shall not prevent the 
cessation of the criminal liability of a party who has thus acted. 

CZ meets the requirements of Article 3 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
Denmark 

In 2007 report DK was considered compliant with the Art. 3 

Germany 

DE did not provide the text of the legislation mentioned § 26 (Anstiftung, instigating) and 27 
(Beihilfe,  aiding  and  abetting)  StGB.  However,  as  the  mentioned  Articles  are  the  same  as 
those  reported  for  the  previous  evaluation,  and DE  clearly  pointed  out all  the  modifications 
the  national  law  has  undergone  in  the  meanwhile,  the  Commission  considers  that  DE  is 
compliant with the art. 3.  

DE meets the requirements of Article 3 

Estonia  

EE  stated  that  it  has  transposed  this  Article  by  means  of  Sections  22,  24  and  60  for  the 
Criminal  Code  entered  into  force  01.09.2002,  which  are  the  same  as  those  reported  for  the 
previous evaluation. 

EE  informs  that  a  clear  distinction  between  abettors  and  aiders  is  made  in  the  national 
legislation.  An  abettor  is  a  person  who  intentionally  induces  another  person  to  commit  an 
intentional unlawful act; an aider is a person who intentionally provides physical, material or 
moral assistance to an intentional unlawful act of another person. The same provisions apply 
to the principal offender and to the accomplice. 

EE meets the requirements of the Article 3 

Ireland 

IE informed that the relevant legislation is Section 1(1) to 1(3) of the 1906 Act (inserted by 
section 2 of the Act of 2001), in conjunction with section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1997 
and section 22 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851. Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Act 
1997  provides  that  any  person  who  aids,  abets,  counsels  or  procures  the  commission  of  an 
indictable offence is liable to be indicted, tried and punished in the same way as the principal 
offender.  Section  22  of  the  petty  Sessions  (Ireland)  Act  1851  makes  the  same  provision  as 
section 7(1) in respect of minor offences. 

IE meets the requirements of Article 3 

Greece 

EL stated that it has transposed Article 3 by means of Articles 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of the 
Criminal Code. Art. 45 covers accomplices, Art. 46 – instigators and primary accessories, Art 
47 – Secondary accessories (aiding),  

EL meets the requirements of Article 3  

Spain 

Spain did not notify its transposition measures 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
There is insufficient information to assess whether ES meets the requirements.  

France 

FR stated that it has transposed Article 3 by means of Articles 121-6, 121-7, Criminal Code. 
Article  121-6  applies  to  accomplices,  who  have  the  same  liability  as  the  main  offender  is 
punished in the same way as the perpetrator of the offence, in the meaning of the article 121-
7." Article 121-7 applies to aiders, abettors and instigators  

FR meets the requirements of Article 3 

Italy  

IT stated that it has transposed Article 3 by means of Art 110, 115 and 378, Criminal Code. 

Section 110 provides that where several persons are jointly involved in the commission of an 
offence, each of them shall be liable to the penalty, unless otherwise provided. This appears to 
relate  to  aiding  and  abetting,  a  concept  which  can  include  being  present  at  the  scene  of  the 
crime. Section 115(1), Criminal Code, provides that agreeing to commit an offence, which is 
then  not  carried  out,  is  not  punishable;  similarly  for  instigation  of  an  offence  which  is  not 
carried out (subsection 3). Section 378(1), criminal Code, applies to a particular serious crime, 
for which the law prescribes life imprisonment or imprisonment, everyone who helps a person 
elude  investigation  by  the  authorities  or  hides  from  them,  is  punishable  by  a  term  of 
imprisonment. 

IT meets the requirements of Article 3 

Cyprus 

CY explicitly refers to the art. 15 of the CoE Convention establishing participatory acts as a 
criminal offence. CY explains that it also covers instigation. 

CY meets the requirements of Article 3 

Latvia  

LV  declared  that  it  has  transposed  Article  3  by  means  of  Chapter  I  and  Chapter  II  of  the 
General part "Criminal Offences". 

Chapter  I  is  very  general  in  nature  and  does  not  appear  directly  relevant  to  article  3,  FD. 
Section  15  (Chapter  II:  General  Part  "Criminal  Offences")  deals  with  completed  and 
uncompleted  criminal  offences.  Subsection  2  provides  that  preparation  for  a  crime  and  an 
attempted  crime  are  uncompleted  criminal  offences;  subsection  3  addresses  the  meaning  of 
"preparation for a crime" and subsection 4 that of "attempt," while subsection 5 provides that 
liability for these shall apply on the same basis as that of the provision relating to the specific 
offence. 

Section 17-20 (Chapter II: General Part "Criminal Offences") deals with the perpetration and 
joint  perpetration  of  an  offence.  In  particular,  section  20  addresses  joint  participation, 
organising or directing the commission of an offence, inducing another person to commit an 
offence and advising or providing practical or other form of assistance. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
LV meets the requirements of Article 3 

Lithuania (2007) 

In 2007 LT states it transposed the article by means of its legislation in art 22, 24 and 25 and 
26  of  the  Criminal  Code.  They  deal  with  attempt,  complicity,  including  instigation, 
abetting/helping and with accomplices. Art 25 expands the notion of complicity to organized 
groups. 

In 2007 it was considered that LT met the requirements of the Article 3 

Luxembourg 

LU  did  not  provide  any  specific  provision  for  this  particular  article,  however  the  internal 
legislation does not seem to have changed from the previous report, where LU was considered 
compliant with Article 3. 

LU meets the requirements of Article 3. 

Hungary 

HU  stated  that  it  has  transposed  Article  3  by  means  of  Art.  19,  21  act  IV  of  1978  on  the 
Criminal Code. 

Art. 19 provides a clear definition of main offenders and co-perpetrators "Persons committing 
criminal acts are: the person committing the act and any accomplices (perpetrators), and any 
instigators  and  accessories  (participants)."  Art.  21  defines  abettor  and  accessory  "(1)  An 
instigator  is  anyone  who  deliberately  incites  another  person  to  commit  a  crime.  (2)  An 
accessory is anyone who deliberately provides assistance in committing a crime. The penalty 
specified to perpetrators shall also apply to participants". 

HU meets the requirements of Article 3. 

Malta 

MT stated that it has transposed Article 3 by means of Art. 41, 42 cap. 9 Criminal Code. 

Art. 41 deals with attempted crimes, which are liable on conviction, with a possible decrease 
in case of voluntary determination of the offender not to complete the crime, if eventually the 
crime is not completed. An attempt to commit contravention is not liable for punishment. 

Article 42 applies to complicity in crime, instigators, aiders and abettors are all deemed to be 
accomplice in crime. 

MT meets the requirements of Article 3 

The Netherlands  

NL  did  not  provide  any  specific  provision  for  this  particular  Article,  however  the  internal 
legislation does not seem to have changed from the previous report. 

NL meets the requirements of Article 3 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
Austria 

AT  did  not  provide  any  specific  provision  for  this  particular  Article.  However,  the  internal 
legislation does not seem to have changed from the previous report. 

AT meets the requirements of Article 3, FD. 

Poland 

PL declared that it has transposed Article 3 by means of Art. 13, 18 Criminal Code. 

The offence of instigating a crime is provided for by Article 18 (1), instigation by subsection 
2 and aiding and abetting the commission of an offence by subsection 3. 

PL meets the requirements of Article 3 

Portugal  

PT stated that it has transposed Article 3 by means of Articles 26, 27 Criminal Code, without 
providing the text of the mentioned legislation. However, the Articles in question are the same 
as those mentioned in the previous evaluation. 

PT meets the requirements of Article 3, FD 

Romania 

RO stated that it has transposed Article 3 by means of Articles 25, 26 Criminal Code. 

Art.  25  applies  to  the  instigator  where  "the  instigator  is  the  person  who  willingly  makes 
another person commit an act provided for the criminal law." Article 26 deals with the aider 
or abettor "the accessory is the person who willingly facilitates or helps by any means in the 
commitment  of  an  act  referred  to  by  the  criminal  law.  An  accessory  is  also  a  person  who 
promises, before or during the commitment of the act, that he/she would conceal the goods in 
connection with that act or that he/she would encourage the perpetrator even if after the act 
has been committed, the promise is not fulfilled." 

RO meets the requirements of Article 3 

Slovenia 

SI declared that it has transposed Article 3 by means of Articles 37, 38, 39, 40 General part of 
the Criminal Code and Articles 241, 242 Criminal Code. 

SI informs the Commission that in the Republic of Slovenia, a prosecution is possible of an 
accomplice, instigator and aide of criminal offences in Articles 241 and 242 of the Criminal 
Code. Instigation, aiding and abetting are defined in the General Part of the Criminal Code as 
follows: 

‘Perpetrator and accomplice 

Article 20 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
(1) A perpetrator of a criminal offence is whoever commits a criminal offence personally or 
by using and directing another (indirect perpetrator). 

(2)  A  perpetrator  of  a  criminal  offence  is  also  whoever,  together  with  another,  commits  a 
criminal  offence  by  willfully  participating  in  the  offence  or  in  some  other  way  decisively 
participating in the offence (accomplice).’ 

‘Instigation 

Article 37 

(1)  Whoever  intentionally  instigates  another  person  to  commit  a  criminal  offence  shall  be 
punished as if he himself had committed it. 

(2) Whoever intentionally instigates another person to commit a criminal offence for which a 
sentence of three years of imprisonment or more may be imposed, shall be punished for the 
criminal attempt, even when there was no attempt to commit a criminal offence.’ 

‘Aiding 

Article 38 

(1)  Whoever  intentionally  supports  another  person  in  intentionally  committing  a  criminal 
offence  shall  be  punished  as  if  he  himself  had  committed  it;  he  may  also  be  punished 
leniently.(2)  Aiding  in  committing  a  criminal  offence  shall  be  deemed  to  include:  giving 
advice or instructions to the perpetrator on how to carry out the criminal offence; providing 
the perpetrator with instruments or removing obstacles for committing the criminal offence; 
giving  a  promise  to  conceal  the  criminal  offence,  the  perpetrator,  the  instruments  used  for 
committing the criminal offence, the traces of the criminal offence, the objects resulting from 
the criminal offence or gains obtained by committing the criminal offence.’ 

‘Punishability of Instigators and Aides for Criminal Attempt 

Article 39 

If the perpetration of a criminal offence falls short of the intended consequence, the instigator 
or aids shall be punished for the criminal attempt.’ 

‘Limits of Punishability of Participants 

Article 40 

(1) A perpetrator, instigator and aide shall be punished for criminal offences within the limits 
of their intent. 

(2) If the instigator or the aide voluntarily prevented the intended criminal offence from being 
accomplished, his sentence may be remitted. 

(3)  Personal  relations,  attributes  and  circumstances,  on  the  basis  of  which  the  guilt  or 
punishability are excluded by law or sentence is remitted, reduced or extended, may be taken 
into consideration only with respect to the participant by whom such relations, attributes and 
circumstances were determined.’ 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
Concealment, as laid down in the Council Framework Decision, is defined in Article 38(2) of 
the KZ-1 as a form of aiding in committing a criminal offence. Article 217 of the Criminal 
Code also provides for a criminal offence of Concealment which includes a liability of a legal 
person. 

‘Concealment 

Article 217 

(1) Whoever purchases, takes as a pledge or otherwise acquires, conceals or disposes either 
movable  or  immovable  property  which  he  knows  to  have  been  acquired  by  means  of  a 
criminal  offence  shall  be  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  two  years.  (2) 
Whoever  commits  the  offence  under  the  preceding  Paragraph,  and  should  and  could  have 
known that the property had been acquired by means of a criminal offence, shall be punished 
by a fine or sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year.(3) If the offences referred 
to  in  Paragraphs  1  or  2  were  committed  by  at  least  two  persons  who  colluded  with  the 
intention of concealment, or if the property referred to in Paragraphs 1 or 2 is of high value, or 
the  property  is  either  of  special  cultural  significance  or  a  natural  curiosity,  the  perpetrator 
shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years for the offence referred to in 
paragraph 1, and to imprisonment for not more than two years for the offence referred to in 
paragraph  2.(4)  If  the  concealed  property  was  acquired  by  means  of  a  criminal  offence  for 
which  the  perpetrator  is  prosecuted  by  a  private  action  or  complaint,  the  prosecution  of 
offences under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be initiated upon the private action or complaint.(5) If 
the  offence  referred  to  in  paragraphs  1,  2  or  3  was  committed  by  a  criminal  association  for 
committing such criminal offences, the perpetrator shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not 
more than five years.’  

SI meets the requirements of Article 3 

Slovakia 

SK stated that it has transposed Article 3 by means of Section 14, 19, 20, 21, 337 Criminal 
Code. 

Section  14  deals  with  attempted  offence,  where  an  attempted  criminal  is  liable  as  a 
perpetrator, with the exception of the voluntary refrain to commit the crime. Sections 19 and 
20  deal  with  the  perpetrator  "whosoever  commits  a  criminal  offence  on  his  own"  and  the 
accessory  "if  the  criminal  offence  is  committed  through  the  joint  action  of  two  or  more 
perpetrators, they shall each be liable as if they had committed the offence on their own." 

Section  21  deals  with  aider  and  abettor.  Section  337  as  well  as  section  21  a)  b)  deal  with 
instigation 

SK meets the requirements of Article 3 

Finland 

FI informed that it has transposed Article 3 by means of Section 5 and 6 Chapter 5, Criminal 
code, without however submitting the text of the mentioned legislation. The Articles reported 
are nonetheless the same as those referred to in the previous evaluation. 

FI meets the requirements of Article 3 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
Sweden 

SE informed that the acts referred to in Article 3 – instigation, aiding and abetting the conduct 
referred to in Article 2 – are criminal acts in Sweden pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 23, 
Section 4 of the Penal Code. 

SE meets the requirements of Article 3 

United Kingdom 

UK informed the Commission that it has transposed Article 3 by means of: 

A: in respect of England, Wales and Northern Ireland: section 8 accessories and abettors act 
1861. 

B: in respect of Scotland: criminal procedure act, 1995.  

Article 3 on instigation, aiding and abetting is covered under section 8 of the Accessories and 
Abettors Act 1861 (which applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland). It lays down that 
any  person  who  aids,  abets,  counsels,  or  procures  an  indictable  offence  (and  the  offences 
under the 1906 Act are indictable) may be prosecuted and punished as a principal. (‘Counsel’ 
and ‘procure’ would cover instigation). In addition to the 1861 Act, an accessory will, in most 
cases, be able to be charged with the full offence as a secondary party. Incitement to commit 
any crime is also a separate common law offence in itself.  

In  Scotland,  participating  or  instigating  is  covered  under  the  Criminal  Procedure  (Scotland) 
Act 1995. Instigation to commit crimes is also a common law offence. Attempting is covered 
under the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. 

UK meets the requirements of Article 3 

1.3. 

Article 4 – Penalties and other sanctions 

1.3.1.  General Comments 

This  Article  of  the  Framework  Decision  requires  that  private  sector  corruption  offences  be 
punishable  by  criminal  penalties  which  are  "effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive".  It  also 
requires MS to ensure that passive and active corruption in the private sector is punishable by 
a penalty of a maximum of at least one to three years of imprisonment. Article 4(3) sets out a 
requirement that MS, 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. 

1.3.2. 

Summary table of the transposing legislation adopted by Member States 

MS 

Legislation 

Measures which appeared relevant 
to Commission's analysis (where 
different to MS' citations) 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
BE  

Art. 504 ter Criminal Code 

Art. 2 Law 26/06/2000 in relation to the 
introduction of Euro in the legislation 
concerning the subject covered by art. 78 
Constitution.  

Law 5 March 1952  

AR No. 22 of 24 October 1934, Art.1(f) 

Art. 19 of the Act of March 20, 1991 on employers' 
organization and art. 20 Law 15 June 2006 on 
public procurement and some 
works, supplies and services 

BG 

Article 225c of the Bulgarian Penal Code 

Article  301,  paragraph  4  PC  in  conjunction 
with Article 7(6) and (7) PC 

Art. 37. (1)  

Article 93 of the Penal Code 

CZ 

Section  49,  73  of  Act  No  140/1961,  the 
Crime Act  

DK 
(2007) 

No reply 

DE 

§299 §300 Criminal Code 

§70 Criminal Code 

EE 

§§  293(2),  294(2),  297(2),  298(2),  Penal 
Code, entered into force 01.09.2002 

§§209-213,  217,  280,  281,  295-298  or 
Chapter 19 of the Penal Code.  

§§49-49,  Penal  Code,  as  amended  on 
22.12.2008 

IE 

Section 1(4) of the 1906 Act, as inserted by 
section 2 of the Act of 2001, Section 7(1) of 
the Criminal  Law Act 1997 and section 22 
of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851. 

Section 1 of the 1906 Act, Section 160 of the 
Companies Act 1990. 

Sections  26,  27(2),  299(2),  Criminal 
Code (2007 report) 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
EL 

Penal code art. 67, 61, 63 

Art. 4 law 3560/2007 

ES 

No reply 

FR  

Art. 445-1, 445-2, 445-3 Penal Code 

IT 

Art. 2635 Civil code 

CY 

LV 

Art. 35bis, 32bis, 378 Criminal Code 

No specific provisions 

Chapter  XIX  "Criminal  offences  of  an 
economic  Nature,"  Special  Part  Criminal 
Law 

LT 
(2007) 

No reply 

LU  

No specific provision 

HU 

Art. 56, 57, 251, 252, 254 Act IV 1978 

MT  

Art. 115, art. 121(3) Criminal Code 

NL 

No specific provisions 

AT 

§§168c,d and e, 153, §§153a and 304, 305, 
306, 307, 308 Criminal Code 

§10 of the Law on Unfair Competition 

PL 

PT 

Law on Corporate Liability 

Art. 296a, art. 41 Criminal Code 

Art.  8  and  9  of  the  Law  no  20/2008  of  21 
April establishing the new criminal regime 
to  combat  corruption  in  the  international 
trade and in the private sector 

RO 

Art. 64, 65, 254 255 Criminal Code 

SI 

Art. 71, 241, 242 Criminal code 

Sections  24,  26  225-227,  Criminal 
Code (2007 report) 

In  the  2007  evaluation,  LU  cited 
Art. 310 and 310-1, criminal code, in 
association  with  Articles  1,  14,  15, 
criminal  Code  and  Article  69 
Criminal Code. 

In  the  2007  evaluation,  NL  cited 
Section 47, 48, 48a, 328b 91) and (2), 
and 339(1) Criminal Code. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SK 

Art.  320,  338,  329,  330,  331,  332,  333,  334, 
335, 336 section 61  

Sect 436 Act no 301/2005, code of Criminal 
Procedure as amended 

FI 

Transposed  article  4(1)  and  4(2)  by  means 
of  :  Criminal  code,  chapter  30,  section  7 
and 8. 

Transposed Article 4(3) by means of Act on 
disqualification  from  business  activities 
(1059/1985), section 2,3,4 

SE  

Chapter  17,  Section  7  and  Chapter  20, 
Section 2 of the Penal Code 

Trading Prohibition Act (1986:436). 

UK  

Company  Directors  Disqualification  Act 
1986 

1.3.2.1.   

1.3.3. 

Summary account of the transposition 

Overall  this  Article  is  implemented  by  an  important  majority  of  ME.  22  MS  (BE,  BG,  CZ, 
DE, DK, EE, EL, IE, FR, IT, CY, LU, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK) have fully 
transposed this article into their domestic law.  

22  MS  meet  the  requirements  of  Article  4(1)  FD.  LV,  MT,  AT  and  RO  did  not  provide 
sufficient information to assess whether sanctions provided cover also instigation, aiding and 
abetting  (Art3).  ES  didn’t  reply.  26  MS  transposed  Art  4(2),  ES  was  not  evaluated.  22  MS 
have transposed Art 4(3), LV has transposed it partly, MT did not implement it and CY and 
AT did not provide enough information. ES did not provide any information.  

It  is  to  be  noted  that  as  regards  Article  4(1),  the  Commission  did  not  analyze  whether  the 
sanctions  are  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive,  as  this  analysis  should  rather  be  done 
together with an in-depth analysis of MSs legal systems.  

1.3.3.1.  Summary table of the transposition 

MS  Article 4(1) and 

Article 4(3) 

Comments 

(2) 

BE  

BG 

CZ 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

BE has transposed Article 4 

BG has transposed Article 4 

CZ has transposed Article 4 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
MS  Article 4(1) and 

Article 4(3) 

Comments 

(2) 

Appeared to 
meet the 
requirements in 
2007 evaluation 

Appeared to 
meet 
requirements in 
2007 evaluation 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

- 

- 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

Appeared  to  have  transposed  Article  4  in 
2007 evaluation 

DE has transposed Article 4 

EE has transposed Article 4 

IE has transposed Article 4 

EL has transposed Article 4 

There  is  no  information  to  available  to 
assess  whether  ES  has  transposed  Article 
4 

FR  

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

FR has transposed Article 4 

IT 

CY 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

IT has transposed Article 4 

CY has partly transposed Article 4 

Meets the 
requirements 

There is 
insufficient 
information to 
assess whether 
CY meets the 
requirements 

LV 

Insufficient 
information as 
to the Art 3 

Partly meets 
the 
requirements 

LT 

Meets the 
requirements in 
2007 evaluation 

Met 
requirements in 
2007 evaluation 

LU  

HU 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

LV has partially transposed Article 4 

LT  had  transposed  Article  4  in  2007 
evaluation 

LU has transposed Article 4 

HU has fully transposed Article 4 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
MS  Article 4(1) and 

Article 4(3) 

Comments 

Does not meet 
the 
requirements 

MT  has  transposed  Article  4  (1)  as 
regards to Art 2 

MT  

(2) 

There is 
insufficient 
information to 
assess whether 
MT meets the 
requirements of 
art. 4(1) as 
regards the Art 
3 

NL 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

NL has transposed article 4 

(2007) 

(2007) 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

Insufficient 
information 

AT  has  transposed  the  Article  4(1)  as 
regards Art 2 

Insufficient 
information to 
assess whether 
AT meets the 
requirements 
as to the Art 3 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

PL has transposed Article 4 

PT has transposed Article 4 

Meets the 
requirements 

RO has partly transposed Article 4 

Insufficient 
information to 
assess whether 
RO meets the 
requirements 
as to the Art 3 

SI 

SK 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

SI has transposed Article 4 

SK has transposed Article 4 

FI  Meets 

the 

requirements  

Meets 
requirements  

the 

FI has transposed Article 4 

SE  

UK  

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

Meets the 
requirements 

SE has transposed Article 4 

UK has transposed Article 4 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
1.3.4.  Article 4(2) Analysis of Member States 

Belgium 

BE has provided additional explanations on penalties.  

The  Article  50ter  Criminal  Code  stipulates:  §  1  on  a  private  corruption  case,  the  penalty  is 
imprisonment  for  six  months  to  two  years  and  a  fine  of  100  francs  to  10,000  francs,  or  both. 
§ 2. If the request referred to in Article 504bis, § 1, is followed by a proposal referred to in Article 504bis, § 2, 
and the same if the proposal referred to in Article 504bis, § 2 is accepted, the penalty shall be imprisonment of 
six months to three years and a fine of 100 francs to 50,000 francs, or both. With the Law 26 June 2000 art. 2 in 
relation to the introduction of Euro, is clarified that fine expressed in franc currency shall be 
multiplied by 5.5 to be compliant with the Euro.  

BE meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Bulgaria 

Bulgaria referred the Commission to Article 225c and Article 301 Criminal Code. Active and passive corruption 
are punished by means of imprisonment of up to five years (passive) or a fine up to twenty thousand BGN and 
up  to  three  years  or  a  fine  of  up  to  fifteen  thousand  BGN.  Mediators  and  Accomplices  are  punished  by  the 
penalty stipulated for the given offence, taking into consideration the nature and the degree of their participation. 
Moreover, the object of the crime shall be confiscated by the state, and if it is missing or alienated, its equivalent 
shall be adjudicated. 

BG meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Czech Republic 

The offences of passive corruption under section 160 and 331 of the Crime Act are punished 
with imprisonment up to 3 years or a fine. CZ informed that in addition to imprisonment, it is 
also  possible  to  impose  a  fine,  even  though  is  not  directly  mentioned  in  the  constituent 
elements of the offence of bribery if the offender, through an intentional offence, obtains or 
tries to obtain economic benefit. 

In  addition  to  these  penalties,  it  is  also  possible  to  order  the  forfeiture  of  an  item  or  other 
assets  pursuant  to  section  55  of  the  Crime  Act,  whereby  the  forfeiture  of  an  item  or  other 
economic asset (a bribe) intended, used or acquired through criminal activity is possible. 

The offences of active corruption under section 161 and 332 of the Crime Act are punished 
with imprisonment of up to 2 years or a fine. The penalties foreseen are higher (imprisonment 
of  one  to  six  years,  forfeiture  of  property  or  a  fine)  if  the  offence  is  committed  with  the 
intention of obtaining significant benefit or with the intention of causing significant damage.  

With  regard  to  instigation,  aiding  and  abetting,  section  333  of  the  Crime  Act  provide  for 
penalty of imprisonment of up to two years 

CZ meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Germany 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
The criminal offences of passive and active corruption in the course of business under §299 
StGB is subject to a term of imprisonemnt of a maximum of up to three years. In particularly 
serious cases of passive and active corruption in the course of business, proviswion is made 
under §300StGB for a term of imprisonment of a maximum of up to five years.  

With  regard  to  offences  under  Article  3,  German  authorities  mentioned  the  provisions  of 
sections  26  and  27  of  the  Criminal  Code,  which  provide  that  the  same  punishment  would 
correspond to that for the perpetrator.  

DE meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Estonia 

Granting  or  promising  a  gratuity  is  punishable  by  a  pecuniary  punishment  or  up  to  3  years' 
imprisonment, as foreseen by § § 297 and 298 of the Penal Code. Giving or promising a bribe 
is punishable by 1 to 5 years' imprisonment.  

Passive corruption is punished by means of § § 293 and 294 up to 3 years' imprisonment in 
case  of  lawful  acts  or  omissions  and  up  to  5  years'  imprisonment  for  unlawful  acts  or 
omissions. 

Under aggravating circumstances  the sanctions are higher, e.g. accepting of gratuity at least 
twice; by demanding gratuities; by a group, or on a large-scale basis, is punishable by up to 5 
years' imprisonment. Accepting bribe at least twice; by demanding bribe; by a group, or on a 
large-scale basis, is punishable by 2 to 10 years' imprisonment.  

Granting of gratuity, if committed at least twice, is punishable by up to 5 years' imprisonment. 
Giving bribe, if committed at least twice, is punishable by 2 to 10 years' imprisonment. 

With  regard  to  instigation,  aiding  and  abetting,  section  22(4),  Criminal  Code  provides  that 
unless section 24 is applicable, a punishment shall be imposed on an accomplice pursuant to 
the same provision of law which prescribes the liability of the principal offender. Section 24 
Criminal  Code  deals  with  "special  personal  characteristics"  that  is/in  other  words  certain 
circumstances which are a necessary part of an offence. Section 24(2) Criminal Code provides 
that if an accomplice lacks such characteristics then section 60, Criminal Code, which deals 
with mitigation of penalties, may apply. 

EE meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Ireland 

With respect to Article 2 offences, section 1(4) of the 1906 Act, as inserted by section 2 of the 
Act of 2001, provides for a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both, 
where an offence of active or passive corruption has been committed.  

Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1997 and section 22 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 
1851,  satisfy  the  requirements  with  respect  to  Article  3  offences,  providing  that  any  person 
who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an indictable offence is liable to be 
indicted, tried and punished in the same way as the principal offender. 

IE meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
Greece 

EL refers to Art. 5 L.3560/2007. However, this article does not include details of the penalties 
which may be imposed on those who commit active or passive corruption but further refers to 
Articles 235, 236 and 238 of the Penal Code. With regard to instigation, aiding and abetting, 
EL made reference to Articles 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 of the Penal Code. These provisions cover 
the requirement of Art 4(2).  

EL meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

France 

The same penalties are provided for both active and passive corruption (article 445-1 and 445-
2), namely imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of 75,000 euro. 

With regard to penalties concerning instigation, aiding and abetting, article 121-6 states that 
complicity in these acts is punished as the principal violation. 

FR meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Italy 

For the offences of active corruption, section 2635(2) of the Civil Code provides for a penalty 
of imprisonment up to 3 years. 

For  the  offence  of  passive  corruption  (section  2635(1)  of  the  Civil  Code)  the  maximum 
penalty of imprisonment is 3 years. 

The  penalty  provided  for  the  offences  of  instigating,  aiding  and  abetting  is  the  same  as  the 
penalty for the main offence (imprisonment of up to 3 years). 

IT meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Cyprus 

According  to  Section  4  of  Law  23  (III)/2000  (Ratification  law),  the  acts  referred  to  in  a 
number  of  Articles  of  the  Council  of  Europe  Criminal  Law  Convention  on  Corruption, 
including active and passive bribery in the private sector, as well as participatory acts such as 
aiding  and  abetting  (art.  7,  8,  15)  constitute  offences  which  are  liable  to  seven  years  seven 
years imprisonment or a fine of up to 17.000 Euro, or to both sentences, without prejudice to 
the trial Court to impose any other sentence or to issue any order which it may impose in the 
adjudication of criminal cases.  

In  addition,  the  Section  3  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act  applies  to  private  and  public 
corruption as well. It establishes it as a criminal offence and provides for imprisonment of up 
to two years or a fine not exceeding 2.550 Euro or both.  

Further comments on penalties applicable to instigation would be welcome.  

CY meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Latvia 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
Section 196 of the Criminal Code states that the penalty foreseen in respect of use or abuse of 
one's authority in bad faith, is imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years or confiscation 
of  property  or  community  service  or  a  fine  not  exceeding  40  times  the  minimum  monthly 
wage.  If  the  same  offence  is  committed  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  property,  certain 
elements  of  the  applicable  penalty  are  higher,  namely  imprisonment  for  a  period  not 
exceeding 5 years, or confiscation of property or community service or a fine not exceeding 
120 times the minimum monthly wage. 

Section 199 foresees the penalty (for offering or giving an advantage, if the offer is accepted) 
of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or custodial arrest, or community service or 
a fine not exceeding 50 times the minimum monthly wage. Where the offence is repeated or 
on  a  larger  scale,  the  penalty  is  imprisonment  for  a  period  not  exceeding  5  years,  or 
community service, or a fine not exceeding 100 times the minimum monthly wage.  

With  regard  to  instigation,  aiding  and  abetting,  offences  under  section  15,  Chapter  II, 
Criminal Code, dealing with preparation of an offence, are penalized on the same basis as that 
of the main offence. However, section 20, Chapter II, Criminal Code, dealing with instigators 
and accessories, focuses on questions of liability rather than on the penalties. 

LV  meets  the  requirements  of  Article  4(2),  but  there's  insufficient  information  to  assess 
whether LV meets the requirements of Article 4(1) with regard to Article 3 

Luxembourg 

The  art  310  of  the  Penal  Code  (passive  corruption)  foresees  a  penalty  of  one  month  to  five 
years and a fine of 251 to 30.000 Euro. In the article 310-1 (active corruption) the same level 
of penalties is provided for.  

With  regard  to  instigation,  aiding  and  abetting  LU  did  not  provide  additional  clarifications, 
but was found compliant with the art 4 (1) with regard to art. 3 

LU meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Hungary 

The penalty foreseen for an offence of active corruption is imprisonment for a period up to 2 
years,  where  the  bribed  is  an  employee  or  member  of  a  budgetary  agency,  economic 
organisation or non-governmental organisation, or to another person on his/her account. The 
penalty is higher - up to 3 years, if the bribed is an employee or member who is authorized to 
act  in  the  name  and  on  behalf  of  a  budgetary  agency,  economic  organisation  or  non-
governmental organisation, or to another person on his/her account. 

The penalty for an offence of passive corruption: 

- imprisonment for a period up to 2years, where the person seeking the bribe is an employee 
or member of a budgetary agency, economic organisation or non-governmental organisation 
(section 251(1) Criminal Code); if guilty of a felony the period is 1 to 5 years or, if guilty of a 
pattern of criminal profiteering, criminal conspiracy or involve a matter of greater importance, 
between 2 to 8 years. 

With regard to penalties concerning instigation, aiding and abetting art. 21(3) of the Criminal 
Code states that the penalties specified to perpetrators shall also apply to participants. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
HU meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Malta 

Article 115, Criminal Code provides the penalties as follows: 

- where the object of the reward, promise or offer, be to induce the officer or servant to do 
what  he  is  in  duty  bound  to  do,  the  punishment  shall  be  imprisonment  for  a  term  from  six 
months to three years; 

- where the object be to induce the officer or servant to forbear from doing what he is in duty 
bound to do, the punishment shall, for the mere acceptance of the reward, promise or offer, be 
imprisonment for a term from nine months to five years; 

-where besides accepting the rewards, promise or offer, the officer or servant actually fails to 
do what he is in duty bound to do, the punishment shall be imprisonment for a term from one 
year to eight years. 

Art. 121D provides the possibility of fine. 

With  regard  to  offences  of  instigation,  aiding  and  abetting  under  Articles  41  and  42  of  the 
Criminal Code, focuses on questions of liability rather than on the penalties.  

MT  meets  the  requirements  of  Article  4(2)but  there  is  insufficient  information  to  assess 
whether MT meets the requirements of Article 4(1), FD with regard to Article 3. 

The Netherlands 

No  specific  provisions  were  submitted  regarding  this  Article  by  NL,  but  it  should  be  noted 
that NL met the requirements at the time of the first evaluation in 2007.  

NL meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Austria 

The  penalties  are  as  follows:  up  to  3  years  of  imprisonment  for  active  corruption,  if  the 
advantage exceeds 5.000 Euro and up to 2 years for passive. 

AT  did  not  provide  any  further  information  regarding  penalties  for  offences  defined  in  the 
Article 3, therefore it is impossible to assess whether the relevant legislation is compliant with 
the Framework Decision.  

AT meets the requirements of  Article  4(2) FD but there is insufficient information to assess 
whether AT meets the requirements of Article 4(1) FD with regard to Article 3. 

Poland 

The same level of penalty is foreseen for offences of either active or passive corruption with 
respect to an offence causing material losses or in less serious cases. 

The  penalty  for  causing  material  losses  to  one's  organisation  is  imprisonment  for  a  term  of 
between 3 months and 5 years. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
Article 19 of the Criminal Code provides that the penalties for instigating, aiding and abetting 
are those which apply within the limits of the penalties provided for the offences, but may in 
exceptional cases be lighter for persons convicted of aiding and abetting. 

PL meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Portugal 

Passive corruption is punished by imprisonment of up to two years or with a fine. If it is liable 
to distort competition or to cause a patrimonial damage to third parties, the person is punished 
by imprisonment of up to five years or with a fine. 

In case of active corruption (art.9) the perpetrator is punished by imprisonment of up to a year 
or with a fine. If the action is liable to cause a patrimonial damage to third parties or to lead to 
a  distortion  of  competition,  the  person  is  punished  by  imprisonment  of  up  to  three  years  or 
with a fine.  

The  art.  27  of  the  Criminal  Code  states  that  "the  person  who,  intentionally  or  in  whatever 
form, materially or morally helps other person to perform an intentional act, is punishable as 
accomplice.  The  penalty  applicable  to  the  accomplice  is  the  one  which  is  fixed  for  the 
principal, specially mitigated".  

PT meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Romania 

Article  2  was  transposed  by  Article  254  and  255  of  the  Criminal  Code,  which  makes  it  a 
criminal  offence  to  take  and  to  give  a  bribe,  the  sentence  being  imprisonment  from  3  to  12 
years  (for  bribe  taking),  from  6  months  to  5  years  (for  bribe  giving),  respectively,  in  its 
standard form, and imprisonment from 3 years to 15 years for bribe taking in the aggravated 
form of the offence. 

RO did not submit any information regarding the penalties referred to Article 3.  

RO  meets  the  requirements  of  Article  4(2)  but  there  is  insufficient  information  to  assess 
whether RO meets the requirements of Article 4(1), with regard to Article 3.  

Slovenia 

SI explains that penalties for criminal offences under Article 2 of the Framework Decision are 
laid down in the Articles 241 and 242 of the Criminal Code according to which the highest 
penalty  is  always  stated  in  a  range  as  provided  in  Article  4(2)  of  Framework  Decision 
(maximum of at least one to three years). The primary criminal offences of passive and active 
corruption are punishable by an imprisonment for not less than six months and no more than 
five years. 

With regard to instigation,  aiding  and abetting (article 27  and 38),  they are punishable with 
the same penalty as the main offence.  

Mitigating circumstances are set in the art 40:  

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
"Limits of Punishability of Participants 

Article 40 

(1) A perpetrator, instigator and aide shall be punished for criminal offences within the limits 
of their intent. 

(2) If the instigator or the aide voluntarily prevented the intended criminal offence from being 
accomplished, his sentence may be remitted. 

(3)  Personal  relations,  attributes  and  circumstances,  on  the  basis  of  which  the  guilt  or 
punishability are excluded by law or sentence is remitted, reduced or extended, may be taken 
into consideration only with respect to the participant by whom such relations, attributes and 
circumstances were determined." 

SI meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Slovakia 

The  Slovak  legislation  foresees  (section  328  Criminal  Code)  between  2  and  5  years  of 
imprisonment for passive corruption, or between 3 and 8 years where offence committed in an 
aggravated manner or between 7 and 12 years if the offence is committed on a large scale. 

For active corruption the penalties are similar (section 329 Criminal Code) between 3 and 8 
years as a base, between 10 and 15 years if it is committed on a large scale. 

Section 21(2) provides that the provisions governing the criminal liability of an offender shall 
apply  to  a  participant,  save  where  otherwise  stipulated.  For  instigation  (section  337)  the 
penalties are imprisonment up to 2 years or a pecuniary penalty. 

SK meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Finland 

Penalties for passive and active corruption, as stated in the article 7 and 8, chapter 30 of the 
Finish Criminal Code are: a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.  

With  regard  to  offence  under  article  3,  sections  5  and  6  of  Chapter  5  of  the  Criminal  Code 
apply. They state that an instigator is punishable for incitement to the offence as if he or she 
was the perpetrator. With regard to abetting, the abettor is sentenced for abetting on the basis 
of the same legal provision as the perpetrator. Incitement to punishable aiding and abetting is 
punishable as aiding and abetting 

FI meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

Sweden 

The penalty for active corruption is a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years.  

The penalty for passive corruption is also a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 
years.  However,  if  the  offence  is  serious  (but  no  definition  is  supplied  for  this  term), 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
imprisonment  for  a  period  not  exceeding  6  years  shall  be  imposed  (Chapter  20  –  section  2, 
Criminal Code). 

According to Chapter 23 - Section 4 Criminal Code, the penalties for instigation, aiding and 
abetting are those which are provided in respect of the main offence. 

SE meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

United Kingdom 

The maximum penalty for corruption is 7 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.  

Section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 (applies to England, Wales and Northern 
Ireland) lays down that any person who aids, abets counsels or procures an indictable offence 
may  be  prosecuted  and  punished  as  a  principal.  (Counsel  and  procure  would  cover 
instigation). In addition, an accessory will, in most cases be able to be charged with the full 
offence  as  a  secondary  party.  Incitement  to  commit  a  crime  is  also  a  separate  common  law 
offence in itself.  

UK meets the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) 

1.3.5.  Article 4(3) 

1.3.5.1.  Analysis of Member States 

The majority of MS meet the requirements of Article 4(3). However, AT, MT, UK, LV, PT, 
did  not  supply  information  with  regard  to  Article  4(3).  While  they  did  name  the  relevant 
legislation, they supplied neither commentary nor text. 

Given the multiplicity of approaches, a country by country analysis is provided below. 

Belgium  

BE informed the Commission that the following accessory penalties may also be imposed:  

Prohibition  of  certain  functions,  Royal  Decree  22  of  October  24,  1934  on  the  prohibition  placed  on  certain 
judicial  convicted  and  bankrupts  from  exercising  certain  functions,  professions  or  activities  (it  includes 
prohibition to carry comparable business activities from 3 to 10 years in a similar position or capacity). 

Exclusion of public procurement: 

Law of 15 June 2006 on public procurement and certain contracts for works, supplies and services, art. 20 states 
that: "is excluded from participation in any public market any candidate or tender who has been convicted by a 
court having the force of res judicata for participation in [..] corruption." 

BE meets the requirements of Article 4(3), FD.  

Bulgaria  

Article  301,  paragraph  4  Criminal  Code  in  conjunction  with  Article  7(6)  and  (7)  Criminal 
Code lay down additional sanctions, such as disqualification from holding a public office and revocation 
of the right to exercise a certain profession or activity." 

BG meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
Czech Republic 

Section  49  and  section  73  (effective  from  1  January  2010)  of  the  Crime  Act  provide  that  a 
court may impose the penalty of a prohibition of a particular activity for one to ten years if an 
offender  commits  an  offence  in  connection  with  that  activity.  Under  the  punishment  of  the 
prohibition of a particular activity, a convicted person, over the duration of this punishment, is 
prohibited  from  pursuing  a  particular  job  or  occupation,  holding  a  particular  office,  or 
carrying on an activity for which a special permit is required or the performance of which is 
regulated  by  other  legislation.  They  directly  address  the  FD's  requirement  in  relation  to  a 
temporary prohibition on carrying out that particular or comparable business activity. 

CZ meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

Germany 

The requirements in Article 4(3), FD are covered in German law by the provision prohibiting 
a person convicted for passive or active bribery from carrying on a profession under section 
70 Criminal Code. The minimum period of disqualification is three months. Disqualification 
may be ordered on a permanent basis if it is expected that the maximum statutory period is 
insufficient to protect against the risk posed by the offender. 

DE meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

Estonia 

Estonian authorities informed of recent amends on that provision (Criminal Code as amended 
on  22.12.2008):  a  court  may  deprive  a  convicted  offender  of  the  right  to  work  in  a  certain 
position or operate in a certain area of activity for up to three years if the person is convicted 
of a criminal offence relating to abuse of professional or official status or violation of official 
duties. 

A court may apply an entrepreneurship ban to a convicted offender from one to five years if 
the person has been convicted for an offence connected to the abuse of professional rights or 
breach  of  duties,  or  for  an  offence  referred  to  in  the  §§209-213,  217,  280,  281,  295-298  or 
Chapter 19 of the Code. A person, to whom an entrepreneurship ban has been applied, may 
not  be  an  entrepreneur,  or  a  member  of  a  leading  body  of  a  legal  person,  a  liquidator  or 
general agent of a legal person, or to participate in the management of a legal person in any 
way. 

EE meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

Ireland  

Irish authorities informed that acts of corruption under section 1 of the 1906 Act are indictable 
offences. Section 160 of the Companies Act 1990 provides that where a person is convicted 
on  indictment  of  any  indictable  offence  in  relation  to  a  company,  or  involving  fraud  or 
dishonesty,  he  or  she  may  not  be  appointed  or  act  as  an  auditor,  director  or  other  officer, 
receiver,  liquidator  or  examiner  or  in  any  other  way  participate  in  the  formation  or 
management of a company for a period of 5 years from the date of conviction or such other 
period  as  the  court  may  decide.  A  court  may  also  make  a  disqualification  order  for  such 
period  as  it  sees  fit  in  certain  circumstances.  A  variety  of  other  sanctions  may  be  imposed 
depending on the circumstances in situations where section 160 is not applicable. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
IE meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

Greece 

In relation to Article 4(3) EL referred the Commission to Articles 67, 61 and 63 of the Penal 
Code. Art 61 provides, in a case of a sentence of imprisonment, deprivation of civil rights for 
a period between 1 and 5 years. Art 63 lays down effects of deprivation of civil rights, such as 
permanent or temporary loss of public positions, incapacity to regain civil rights, prohibition 
to vote and to be a member of a jury. Art. 67 provides for disqualification from the exercice of 
professional occupation and revocation of a license if needed.  

EL meets the requirements of Article 4(3), FD. 

France 

FR  informed  the  Commission  that  the  following  measures  are  applicable  to  offences  under 
Articles 445-1 and 445-2, Criminal Code are set out at Article 445-3, Criminal Code: 

"- interdiction des droits civiques, civils et de famille, 

- interdiction d'exercer une fonction publique ou d'exercer l'activité professionnelle ou sociale 
dans l'exercice ou à l'occasion de laquelle l'infraction a été commise, 

-  de  confiscation  de  la  chose  qui  a  servi  ou  était  destine  a  commettre  l'infraction  ou  de  la 
chose qui en est le produit, 

- d'affichage ou de diffusion de la décision prononcée" 

FR meets the requirements of Article 4(3), FD. 

Italy 

Section  35bis,  Criminal  Code  provides  that  for  the  imposition  of  a  suspension  on  a  person, 
following any conviction for an offence of abuse of power or breach of duty in relation to the 
material office. It also provides that persons who are suspended from managerial functions in 
bodies corporate or companies may not, for the duration of the suspension, exercise the office 
of director, auditor, liquidator or managing director or any other office conferring the power 
to represent the body corporate or company. The period of suspension is between 15 days and 
2  years.  A  disqualification,  which  carries  the  same  conditions  as  a  suspension,  shall  be 
ordered following conviction and sentencing to a term of imprisonment of at least 6 months 
for such an offence.  

IT meets the requirements of Article 4(3), FD. 

Cyprus 

In the documents provided there was insufficient information to assess whether CY meets the 
requirements of Article 4(3)  

Latvia  

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
Section 198 of the Criminal Code lays down penalties for passive corruption, among them the 
prohibition to engage in specific forms of entrepreneurial activity or employment for a term 
not exceeding three years. If the offences were committed repeatedly or on a large scale, this 
period may not exceed 5 years.  

There is no similar provision with regard to active corruption.  

LV partly meets the requirements of Art 4(3) 

Luxembourg 

As stated in the 2007 report, the Criminal Code lists the various types of penalty  available 
(criminelles et correctionnelles) and these are applicable to the offences of active and passive 
corruption provided for 
by  Articles  310-1  and  310,  Criminal  Code  respectively.  Apart 
from imprisonment or a fine,  the  penalties  provided  by  the  Criminal  Code  include  a 
prohibition  on  exercising  certain  professional  or  social  activities,  although  there  is  no 
information as to the maximum period for which this might be imposed. 

LU meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

Hungary 

Section  56,  Criminal  Code  provides  that  a  person  may  be  prohibited  from  practicing  his 
profession  if  he  has  violated  the  rules  of  his  profession,  and  the  term  profession  includes 
people of senior status in an organisation such as a member or director of a body exercising 
general control of an organisation such as a member or director of a body exercising general 
control of an organisation or a member of a board of directors. Section 57, Criminal Code sets 
out the conditions which apply to the prohibition, which can either be temporary (for a period 
of 1 to 10 years) or permanent. 

HU meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

Malta 

Information provided by MT does not include any elements allowing to conclude that the art. 
4 (3) has been transposed.  

Therefore, the Commission considers that MT does not meets the requirements of Article  4(3) 

The Netherlands 

NL  did  not  provide  additional  information,  since  it  met  the  requirement  according  to  the 
previous report. Section 339(1), Criminal Code provides for the exclusion of persons guilty of 
offences, including corruption in the private sector, from the occupation through which they 
have committed such an offence. 

NL meets the requirements of Art 4(3) 

Austria 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
AT provided neither the relevant legislation nor a commentary. 

There is insufficient information to assess whether AT meets the requirements of Article 4(3), 
FD. 

Poland 

The  relevant  legislation  is  Article 296a(1)  and  Article  41(1),  Criminal  Code.  According  to 
Article 41(1) and (2): 

Article 41 

(1) The courts may issue an order banning an individual from occupying a given position or 
working in a given profession if the offender abused his position or profession to commit an 
offence or if it transpires that it would not be in the public good, as enshrined in law, for him 
to continue occupying the position in question or working in that profession. 

(2)  The  courts  may  issue  an  order  banning  an  individual  from  conducting  a  given  business 
activity in the event of his being convicted of an offence committed in connection with that 
activity,  in  so  far  as  it  would  not  be  in  the  public  good,  as  enshrined  in  law,  for  him  to 
continue carrying out the business activity in question. 

PL meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

Portugal 

No specific provision was provided by the Portuguese authorities. However, in Chapter III, art. 
65 the Criminal Code sets out some general principles, in line with which "The law may make certain 
crimes correspond to the prohibition from exerting some rights or professions". 

PT meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

Romania 

Article  4(3)  was  transposed  by  Article  64  and  the  following  of  the  Criminal  Code,  which 
provides  the  possibility  to  apply  the  complementary  penalty  of  prohibiting  some  rights, 
including the right to fill a position or pursue a profession or to carry out an activity of the 
type used by the convict for the commitment of the offence.  

Likewise, Article 6 of Act no 31/1990 on companies provides that “the persons who, under 
the law, are unable or have been convicted for fraudulent management, abuse of trust, forgery, 
use  of  false  documents,  fraud,  defalcation,  false  testimony,  giving  or  taking  a  bribe  for  the 
offences  referred  to  in  Act  no  656/2002  providing  for  the  prevention  and  sanctioning  of 
money  laundering,  as  well  as  for  the  establishment  of  measures  for  the  prevention  and 
combating  of  terrorist  acts  financing,  as  subsequently  amended  and  supplemented,  for  the 
offences referred to in Article 143 to 145 of Act no 85/2006 on the insolvency procedure or 
for the offences provided for by this act, as subsequently amended and supplemented, cannot 
be founders.” 

RO meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

Slovenia 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
The General Part of the Criminal Code defines safety measures that may be ordered against 
perpetrators of  criminal offences.  In  accordance with the  provisions of the Criminal Code a 
court may issue against a perpetrator one or more safety measures when the conditions laid 
therein are met. One of the safety measures is a prohibition from carrying on an occupation, 
which Article 71 of the Criminal Code defines as follows: 

‘Prohibition from Carrying on Occupation 

Article 71 

(1)  The  court  may  prohibit  the  perpetrator  from  carrying  on  a  certain  occupation, 
independent activity or function if, by abusing his occupation, position, activity, or function, 
he committed a criminal offence and if the court has reasonable grounds to conclude that his 
further performance of such an occupation would therefore be dangerous. 

(2) The court shall determine the duration of the measure in the preceding paragraph which 
may not be for less than one year and not more than five years, from the day the judgement 
becomes final,  whereby the time spent in prison or in a health institution for  treatment and 
detention shall not be credited towards the term of such a measure. 

(3)  When  pronouncing  a  suspended  sentence,  the  court  may  order  that  such  a  sentence  be 
revoked  if  the  perpetrator  violates  the  terms  of  the  prohibition  from  carrying  on  his 
occupation. 

(4) The court may order that such safety measure be repealed, when a period of two years has 
passed from the day the measure commenced. The court may decide thereof upon a request of 
the offender if it considers the reasons for such a measure have ceased to exist.’ 

SI meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

Slovakia 

Section 61 of the Criminal Code provides the penalty of disqualification, meaning that for the 
duration  of  the  sentence,  the  person  convicted  shall  be  disqualified  from  engaging  in  a 
particular  employment,  job  or  function  for  which  a  special  authorization  is  required  or  the 
exercise of which is governed by a specific legal provision. A court may impose the penalty o 
disqualification  from  an  activity  for  a  period  of  one  to  ten  years  where  the  perpetrator 
committed a criminal offence in connection with the activity concerned. 

SK meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

Finland 

FI cited sections 2, 3 and 4 of Act on disqualification from Business Activities (1059/1985), 
without  providing  the  text.  The  legislation  is  however,  the  same  referred  for  the  previous 
report and the Commission assumes that no changes have occurred in the meanwhile. 

FI meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

Sweden 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
The Trading Prohibition Act (1986:436) provides for the imposition of an injunction against 
trading in a number of cases. The injunction may be imposed for a period of 3 to 10 years. 

Details of the scope of the injunction are provided at section 6, and include a prohibition on 
conducting  business  activities  and  being  a  partner,  board  member  or  otherwise  of  specified 
entities. 

SE meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

United Kingdom 

UK stated that the relevant legislation is the Company Directors Disqualification Act, 

1986. It lays down that the court may make a disqualification order against a person where he 
is  convicted  of  an  indictable  offence.  The  maximum  period  of  disqualification  under  this 
section is where the disqualification order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction, 5 years, 
and in any other case, 15 years. 

UK meets the requirements of Article 4(3) 

1.4. 

Article 5 – Liability of legal persons 

1.4.1.  General Comments 

Article  5  provides  for  the  liability  of  legal  persons  in  relation  to  both  active  and  passive 
corruption. This is one of the most difficult articles to implement by Member States.  

1.4.2. 

Summary table of the transposing legislation adopted by Member States 

Measures 
appeared 
which 
relevant to Commission's analysis 
(where different to MS' citations) 

Sections 26, 27, 306, Criminal code 
(2007 report) 

MS  Legislation 

BE   Art. 5 Criminal Code 

BG  Art. 83 a Criminal Code 

CZ 

CZ informed the Commission that internal law is at this 
stage  incompatible  with  the  European  requirement. 
However  an  action  is  being  taken  to  comply  with  the 
Framework Decision 

DK  No reply 

DE 

§ 30, 130 Law on administrative offence (OWiG), §152 
Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) 

EE  Art. 14(1) (2) penal code 

IE 

Section 9 of act 2001 

EL  Art. 10 law 3560/2007 

ES 

- 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FR   Art. 121-2 Criminal Code 

IT 

No particular provisions to address this article 

CY  No particular provision 

LV 

Chapter  VIII  "Coercive  measures  applicable  to  legal 
persons" of the general part of the Criminal Law 

LT  No reply 

LU   Art. 34, 37 criminal code. 

LU  informed  the  Commission  a  new  Bill  is  currently 
under discussion  

HU  Art. 2 Act CIV 2001 

MT   Art 121(3), art. 121(D) criminal Code 

Law  No 

Ratification 
L.23 
(III)/2000,  in  connection  with  the 
art.  18  of  the  CoE  Criminal  Law 
Convention on Corruption 

In particular art. 20, 225(5), 227(5) 

Articles 
Criminal Code (2007 report) 

225(5), 

20, 

227(5), 

NL  No particular provision 

Section 51 Criminal Code 

AT 

PL 

PT 

Law on corporate liability 

Art.  16(1)  Criminal  Liability  of  Bodies  Corporate  Act 
of 28 October 2002 

Art. 4 Law 20/2008 of 21 April, establish liability and 
refers to general provisions of the Criminal Code 

RO  Art. 19 Criminal Code 

SI 

Art.  4,  5(2)  ZOPOKD-B(criminal  liability  of  legal 
entities act 

SK  No particular provisions. 

Draft amendment to the Criminal Code and the Code of 
Criminal Procedure is under discussion 

FI 

Criminal code, chapter 9, section 2 and 3; 

Chapter 30, section 13 (465/2005) 

SE  

Section 7-10 Chapter 36 Penal Code 

UK  

Interpretation Act 1978 

Civil law of negligence 

Proceed of crime Act 2002 

1.4.3. 

Summary account of the transposition 

The poor transposition of Article 5 is still a matter of concern for the Commission, as it was in 
the previous report. 15 MS have fully transposed Article 5 (BE, DE, IE, EL, CY, LT (2007), 
LU, NL (2007), AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SE, UK). 8 MS transposed it partly (BG, DK (2007), 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EE,  FR,  LV,  HU,  MT,  FI),  CZ  and  IT  did  not  transpose  the  Article,  SK  did  not  provide 
sufficient information and ES did not submit any reply. 

23 MS (all except CZ, IT, no information on SK, ES) meet the requirement of the Article 5 
(1), establishing criminal liability for legal persons. As many as 15 MS (BE, DE, IE, EL, CY, 
LU,  AT,  PL,  PT,  SI,  SE,  UK,  LT  (2007),  NL  (2007),  RO  transposed  Article  5(2).  RO  was 
requested to provide more clarifications as to the extent to which the wording of its legislation 
(which appears to be compliant) is wide enough to cover liability in case of lack of control. 
FR, SK and LV did not provide sufficient information and CZ, IT, BG, EE, IT, HU, FI, MT 
were considered as not fully transposing Article 5(2). 20 MS (BE, BG, DE, EE, IE, EL, FR, 
CY, LV, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SE, UK) have transposed the Article 5(3). 
The  Article  was  not  transposed  by  CZ  and  IT,  while  SK,  DK,  FI  did  not  provide  sufficient 
information for assessment.  

The particular difficulty faced in the analysis was a lack of information from the MS, which 
was especially evident in relation to Articles 5(2) and 5(3). The Commission notes that many 
MS did not refer directly in their legislation to the case of lack of supervision or to the fact 
whether or not corporate liability excludes liability of the natural person.  

1.4.3.1.  Summary table of the transposition 

MS  Article 5(1) 

Article 5(2) 

Article 5(3) 

Comments 

BE   Meets 

requirements 

BG  Meets 

requirements 

the 

the 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

Meets 
requirements 

Does  not  meet  the 
requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

the 

BE  has  transposed 
Article 5 

BG 
partly 
has 
transposed Article 5 

CZ  Does  not  meet  the 
requirements 

Does  not  meet  the 
requirements 

Does  not  meet  the 
requirements 

CZ 
not 
has 
transposed Article 5 

DK  Meets 

the 
requirements  (2007 
report) 

the 
Meets 
requirements  (2007 
report) 

DK  has  transposed 
the art 5 (1) and (2) 

In  2007  there  was 
insufficient 
information 
to 
assess  whether  DK 
the 
met 
requirements 

DE  Meets 

requirements 

EE  Meets 

requirements 

IE  Meets 

requirements 

EL  Meets 

requirements 

ES 

- 

FR   Meets 

requirements 

the 

the 

the 

the 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

Meets 
requirements 

Does  not  meet  the 
requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

the 

Meets 
requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

the 

the 

the 

DE  has  transposed 
Article 5 

EE 
partly 
has 
transposed Article 5 

IE  has 
Article 5 

transposed 

EL  has  transposed 
Article 5 

- 

- 

- 

the 

Insufficient 
information 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

partly 
has 
FR 
transposed Article 5 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
MS  Article 5(1) 

Article 5(2) 

Article 5(3) 

Comments 

IT 

 Does  not  meet  the 
requirements 

 Does  not  meet  the 
requirements 

 Does  not  meet  the 
requirements 

IT 
has 
transposed article 5 

not 

CY  Meets 

requirements  

LV  Meets 

requirements 

the 

the 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

Meets 
requirements 

Insufficient 
information 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

the 

CY  has  transposed 
Article 5 

LV 
partly 
has 
transposed Article 5 

LT  Met requirements in 
2007 report 

Met requirements in 
2007 report 

Met requirements in 
2007 report 

LT  has  transposed 
Article 5 in 2007 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

the 

LU  has  transposed 
Article 5  

HU 
partly 
has 
transposed article 5  

Meets 
requirements 

LU   Meets 

requirements 

HU  Meets 

requirements 

the 

the 

MT   Meets 

the 

requirements 

Does  not  appear  to 
the 
meet 
requirements 

Does  not  appear  to 
the 
meet 
requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

MT 
partly 
has 
transposed Article 5 

NL  Meets 

requirements 

AT  Meets 

requirements 

PL  Meets 

requirements 

PT  Meets 

requirements 

RO  Meets 

SI 

SK 

requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

 Insufficient 
information 

the 

the 

the 

the 

the 

the 

Meets 
requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

the 

the 

the 

Meets 
requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

Appears to meet the 
requirements  

Meets 
requirements 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

Meets 
requirements 

 Insufficient 
information 

 Insufficient 
information 

the 

the 

the 

the 

the 

the 

FI  Meets 

requirements 

the 

Partly  meets 
requirements 

the 

There  is  insufficient 
information 
to 
assess  whether  FI 
meets 
the 
requirements 

NL  has  transposed 
Article 5 (2007) 

AT 
Article 5 

transposed 

PL  has  transposed 
Article 5  

PT  has  transposed 
Article 5  

RO  has  transposed 
Article 5 

SI  has 
Article 5 

transposed 

Insufficient 
information 
to 
assess  whether  SK 
has 
transposed 
Article 5 

has 

FI 
partly 
transposed Article 5 

SE   Meets 

requirements 

the 

Meets 
requirements  

the 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

SE  has  transposed 
Article 5 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
MS  Article 5(1) 

Article 5(2) 

Article 5(3) 

Comments 

UK   Meets 

requirements 

the 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

Meets 
requirements 

the 

UK  has  transposed 
Article 5 

1.4.4.  Article 5(1) Analysis of Member States 

Belgium 

BE met the requirements in 2005, no further changes were referred to. 

BE appears to meet the requirements of Article 5(1), FD. 

Bulgaria 

Art. 83a of the Criminal Code provides:  

"Art. 83a. 1 

Whenever  a  legal  person  has  unlawfully  derived  advantage  or  may  unlawfully  derive 
advantage from a crime as defined in Articles 108a, 109, 110 (preparation of terrorism), 142 
to 143a, 159 to 159c, 209 - 212а, 213а, 214, 215, 225c, 242, 250, 252, 253, 254, 254b, 256, 
257, 280, 283, 301 to 307, 319a to 319f, 320 to 321a and 354a to 354c of the Penal Code, and 
from  any  crimes  carried  out  under  the  instructions  or  in  accordance  with  a  decision  of  an 
organised criminal group, and such crime is committed by: 

1. a person who has been granted decision-making powers with respect to a legal person;  

2. a person who has been granted powers of attorney with respect to a legal person;  

3. a person appointed as member of a monitoring or supervisory body of a legal person, or 

4.  an  employee  to  whom  certain  duties  have  been  delegated  by  a  legal  person,  where  the 
crime is committed in the course of or in relation to those duties  

a fine of a maximum of one million BGN shall be imposed but not less than an amount equal 
to the corporeal advantage derived; where the advantage is incorporeal or its value cannot be 
determined, a fine from five thousand BGN up to a maximum of one hundred thousand BGN 
shall be imposed."  

According  to  the  art  83a.2,  a  fine  will  be  imposed  on  a  legal  person  in  case  of 
instigation/abetting. 

BG meets the requirements of Article 5(1) 

Czech Republic 

CZ informed the Commission that Czech law did not recognize the criminal liability of legal 
persons. Legal persons are liable for administrative offences laid down in specific individual 
laws. The liability of legal persons for the conduct referred to in Article 2 of the Framework 
Decision is not enshrined in Czech law.  

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
CZ  informed  that  the  main  tenets  of  the  liability  of  legal  persons  for  corruption  and  other 
solicited  action  were  being  prepared,  for  the  time  being  however  the  Commission  has  not 
received any draft of such mentioned acts. 

CZ does not meet the requirements Article 5(1) 

Germany 

DE stated that the relevant provision is section 30, Administrative Offences Act. Section 30, 
Administrative  Offences  Act  provides  for  the  liability  of  a  legal  person  where  an 
administrative  or  criminal  offence  is  committed  by  certain  bodies  or  categories  of  natural 
person,  including  a  partner  or  executive  manager,  or  anyone  else  with  responsibility  for 
directing  the  business,  including  supervising  the  conduct  of  its  business  or  otherwise 
exercising powers of control in a management position. This appears to meet the requirement 
to  cover  "a  leading  person".  The  offence  in  question  should  involve  a  breach  of  duties 
incumbent on the legal person or its enrichment. 

DE meets the requirements of Article 5(1) 

Estonia  

Estonia informed the Commission that, in the cases provided by law, a legal person shall be 
held responsible for an act which is committed by a body, a member of a body, senior official 
or an authorized representative thereof in the interest of the legal person. 

(§  14(1),  Criminal  Code,  as  amended  on  28.07.2008)  The  Supreme  Court  has  construed  the 
concept of senior official very broadly, and the concept of authorized representative, added in 
2008, should cover also persons representing a legal person without employment relationship. 

EE meets the requirements Article 5(1) 

Ireland 

As described in the 2007 report, the relevant legislation is section 9 of the Act of Prevention 
of Corruption Act, which provides that where an offence under the Prevention of Corruption 
Acts  1889  to  2001  has  been  committed  by  a  body  corporate  and  is  proved  to  have  been 
committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of 
a person, that person as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of an offence and be liable 
to  be  proceeded  against  and  punished  as  if  he  or  she  were  guilty  of  the  first-mentioned 
offence. Section 9(2) provides that where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its 
members,  subsection  (1)  shall  apply  in  relation  to  the  acts  and  defaults  of  a  member  in 
connection with his or her functions of management as if he or she were a director or manager 
of the body corporate.  

IE meets the requirements of Article 5(1) 

Greece 

Art.  10  par.  1  of  law  3560/2007  states:  "If  any  of  the  criminal  offences  of  active  bribery, 
trading  in  influence  and  money  laundering  referred  to  in  articles  159,  235  and  237  of  the 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
Greek Penal Code and articles third to eighth hereof, is committed for the benefit of any legal 
person  exercising  business  activities,  by  any  natural  person,  acting  either  as  perpetrator  or 
instigator or accessory, either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, who has a 
leading  position  within  the  legal  person,  based  on  a  power  of  representation  of  the  legal 
person,  or  an  authority  to  take  decisions  on  behalf  of  the  legal  person,  or  an  authority  to 
exercise control within the legal person, in addition to the criminal liability of the said natural 
person, the following sanctions shall be imposed on this legal person, upon a decision of the 
Head of the competent regional directorate of the Special Control Service: 

-  an  administrative  fine  up  to  three  times  the  value  of  the  advantage  eachieved  or 

- 

- 

pursued; or 
temporary  or,  in  case  of  recidivism,  permanent  disqualification  from  the  practice  of 
business activities; or 
temporary or permanent expulsion from entitlement to public benefits or aid ." Par. 3 
and  4  of  the  same  law  specify  that  apart  from  the  mentioned  sanctions,  other 
provisions  shall  apply  as  well  and  a  joint  decision  of  the  Minister  of  Economy  and 
Finance and Minister of Justice shall determine the procedure for the imposition of the 
sanctions. 

EL meets the requirements of Article 5(1). 

France 

French authorities clarified that Art. 121-2 of the Criminal Code allow that the legal person 
can  be  held  liable  when  an  act  is  committed  for  its  benefit  "par  (ses)  organes  ou 
représentants." FR informs that the jurisprudence gives a wide interpretation of the definition 
of représentant.  

"Pour  que  la  responsabilité  de  la  personne  morale  soit  engagée,  il  faut  que  les  infractions 
aient  été  commises  par  un  organe  ou  un  représentant  de  la  personne  morale  et  pour  son 
compte (Cass. crim. 18 janvier 2000, Bull. crim. n°28)." 

"La Chambre Criminelle de la Cour de Cassation, a notamment estimé qu'avaient la qualité 
de  représentant  au  sens  de  l'article  121-2  du  code  pénal  les  personnes  pourvues  de  la 
compétence, de l'autorité et des moyens nécessaires en raison d'une délégation de pouvoir de 
la  part  des  organes  de  la  personne  morale  ou  d'une  subdélégation  des  pouvoirs  d'une 
personne déléguée par ces mêmes organes." 

Employees can, depending on the circumstances, and if they are not acting as sending party 
(mandataire social) regularly designated by the legal person, commit the liability ('engare la 
responsabilité') if they have authority to take decisions on behalf of the legal person. 

The  text  submitted  and  the  interpretations  of  the  jurisprudence  confirm  the  compliance  of 
Art.121-2 to the requirements posed by the FD. 

FR meets the requirements Article 5(1) 

Italy 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
 
IT stated in its notification that there were no provisions to cover the Article 5 and 6.  

IT does not meet the requirements of the art.5 and 6. 

Cyprus 

CY  in  its  Law  Ratifying  the  Criminal  Law  Convention  of  Corruption  of  the  CoE  expressly 
refers  to  the  art.  18  of  the  Convention,  introducing  the  concept  of  corporate  liability  into 
domestic legislation.  

CY meets the requirements of Article 5(1)  

Latvia 

Section 70(1) provides the basis for the application of coercive measures to a legal person in 
the private sector for those criminal offences provided for in the Special Part of the Law, and 
thereby includes offences under Sections 196 and 199 of Chapter XIX Special Part. Among 
the factors which a court shall take into consideration, in applying coercive measures, is the 
status of the natural person within the legal person. 

LV meets the requirements of Article 5(1). 

Luxembourg 

Art. 34 of the Penal Code provides 

"  La  personne  morale  peut  également  être  déclarée  pénalement  responsable  lorsqu'  une  ou 
plusieurs  des  infractions  énumérées  ci-dessous  ont  été  commises  en  son  nom  et  dans  son 
intérêt  par  un  de  ses  mandataires,  de  droit  ou  de  fait,  exerçant  une  fonction  dirigeante  et 
rapportant directement à un de ses organes légaux:[…] 

Concussion, prise illégale d'intérêts, corruption active et passive, corruption privée" 

LU meets the requirements of Article 5(1) 

Hungary 

The relevant legislation is Art. 2(1) Act CIV of 2001 on the criminal law measures applicable 
to legal persons. They state that the measures specified in this Act shall be applicable to legal 
persons  deliberately  committing  a  criminal  act specified  in  Act  IV  of  1978  on  the  Criminal 
Code where committing the criminal act was intended to produce or resulted in an advantage 
for the legal person and where, in respect of the legal person, the criminal act: 

was committed by a chief executive officer or an employee or a partner entitled to represent, 
or by an official, a manager or a member of the supervisory board or their delegate acting on 
behalf of the legal person, 
was committed by a partner or an employee acting on behalf of the legal persons and the chief 
executive  officer,  the  manager  and  the  supervisory  board  could  have  prevented  the  act  by 
complying with their managerial or supervisory obligations." 

HU meets the requirements of Article 5(1) 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
Malta 

Article 121D of the Criminal Code provides  

"Where  the  person  found  guilty  of  an  offence  under  this  title  is  the  director,  manager, 
secretary  or  other  principal  officer  of  a  body  corporate  or  is  a  person  having  a  power  of 
representation of such a body or having an authority to take decisions on behalf of that body 
or having authority to exercise control within that body and the offence of which that person 
was found guilty was committed for the benefit, in part or in whole, of that body corporate, 
the  said  person  shall  for  the  purpose  of  this  title  be  deemed  to  be  vested  with  the  legal 
representation of the same body corporate which shall be liable payment of a fine (multa) not 
less than one thousand and one hundred and sixty-four euro and sixty nine cents (1,164.69) 
and not more than one million and one hundred and sixty-four thousand and six hundred and 
eighty-six euro and seventy cents 

.MT meets the requirements of Article 5(1) 

The Netherlands 

No  specific  provision  was  submitted,  however  NL  was  fully  compliant  according  to  the 
previous report and no further modifications in the legislation have been referred. 

NL meets the requirements of Article 5(1), FD. 

Austria 

The  article  is  transposed  by  the  Law  on  the  Liability  of  Associations,  under  Article  2 
(definitions  of  decision-makers  and  employees)  and  3  which  provide  the  liability  of 
associations.  

According to Article 2 a decision-maker is: 

"1. 
a managing director, board member, or signing clerk, or a person who, on the basis of 
legal power of representation, including power in respect of particular management duties, is 
similarly entitled to represent the association in external relations, 

a member of the supervisory board or administrative board, or a person who otherwise 

2. 
performs a senior supervisory role with powers of control, or 

3. 

a person who exercises significant influence over the management of the association." 

AT meets the requirements of Article 5(1), FD. 

Poland 

Poland  made  reference  to  the  same  Articles  provided  for  the  previous  report  acording  to 
which Polish legislation was fully compliant to the requirements.  

PL meets the requirements of Article 5(1), FD. 

Portugal 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
Portugal  informed  that  the  Commission  that  the  relevant  legislation  is  Article  4  of  Law  No 
20/2008  of  21  April  (liability  of  legal  persons)  which  establishes  liability  and  refers  to  the 
general provisions of the Criminal Code. 

PT meets the requirements of Article 5(1) 

Romania 

The  relevant  legislation  is  article  19  of  the  Criminal  Code,  which  lays  down  the  conditions 
with regard to the criminal liability of the legal entity. 

"ARTICLE 19 – Conditions with regard to the criminal liability of legal entities 

Legal  entities,  except  for  the  State,  the  public  authorities  and  the  public  institutions  which 
pursue  an  activity  which  cannot  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  private  sector,  shall  be  held 
responsible  under  the  criminal  law  for  the  offences  committed  with  the  aim  to  pursue  their 
object,  in  the  interests  or  on  behalf  of  the  legal  entity,  if  the  act  was  committed  under  the 
offence punishable by the criminal law. 

Criminal  liability  of  the  legal  entity  does  not  exclude  the  criminal  liability  of  the  natural 
person who contributed by any means to the commitment of the same offence. 

Under the Criminal Code, the onus of criminal liability shall be on all the legal entities, except 
for  the  State,  the  public  authorities  and  the  public  institutions  pursuing  an  activity  which  is 
outside the scope of the private sector.  

With regard to the scope of offences that can be committed by a legal entity, the “system of 
the general clause” was the option, which implies that the legal entity can commit in principle 
any offence as a perpetrator, accessory or instigator, and each specific case shall examined to 
find whether the conditions for the engagement of the criminal liability have been fulfilled." 

RO meets the requirements of Article 5(1) 

Slovenia 

The Criminal Liability of Legal Entities Act provides that a legal person may be liable for a 
criminal  offence  laid  down  in  Articles  241  and  242  of  the  Criminal  Code.  Concerning 
instigation, aiding and abetting, and concealment, as laid down in Article 3 of the Framework 
Decision, the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code apply by analogy to legal 
persons.  The  grounds  for  a  liability  of  legal  persons  are  laid  down  in  Article  4  of  the  law 
ZOPOKD-B which provides: 

‘Article 4 

A legal person shall be liable for a criminal offence committed by the perpetrator in the name 
of, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the legal person: 

1.  if  the  committed  criminal  offence  constitutes  carrying  out  an  unlawful  decision,  order  or 
endorsement by its management or supervisory bodies; 

2.  if  its  management  or  supervisory  bodies  influenced  the  perpetrator  or  enabled  him  to 
commit the criminal offence; 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
3.  if  it  gains  an  unlawfully  obtained  pecuniary  benefit  or  uses  objects  resulting  from  the 
criminal offence; 

4. if its management or supervisory bodies have omitted due supervision over the legality of 
actions of employees subordinate to them.’ 

SI meets the requirements of Article 5(1) 

Slovakia 

Slovak authorities informed the Commission that the provisions on liability of legal persons 
under criminal law were included in the draft amendment to the Criminal Code and the Code 
of  Criminal  Procedure,  discussion  on  which  was  interrupted  by  the  Slovak  Government  on 
9 April  2008  pending  the  proceedings  before  the  Constitutional  Court  regarding  the 
constitutional  legality  of  the  Special  Court  of  the  Slovak  Republic.  On  20 May  2009,  the 
Constitutional Court ruled in this matter and as a result, the legislative process is expected to 
continue now. As in the meantime the legislation seems to have changed, and the Commission 
was not notified of any of the changes, nor was it provided with the new text, it is impossible 
to assess the compliance with the art. 5 

There is insufficient information to assess whether SK meets the requirements of the art. 5 

Finland 

According to the Criminal Code (chapter 9 section 1) A corporation, foundation or other legal 
entity in whose operations an offence has been committed may on the request of the public 
prosecutor be sentenced to a corporate fine if such a sanction has been provided in this Code 
for the offence". Section 2 states that A corporation may be sentenced to a corporate fine if a 
person  who  is  part  of  its  statutory  organ  or  other  management  or  who  exercises  actual 
decision-making  authority  therein  has  been  an  accomplice  in  an  offence  or  allowed  the 
commission  of  the  offence  or  if  the  care  and  diligence  necessary  for  the  prevention  of  the 
offence have not been observed in the operations of the corporation. 

FI meets the requirements Article 5(1) 

Sweden 

The relevant legislation is section 7 of Chapter 36 of the Penal Code: 

"  for  a  crime  committed  in  the  exercise  of  business  activities  the  entrepreneur  shall,  at  the 
instance  of  a  public  prosecutor,  be  ordered  to  pay  a  corporate  fine  if  it  for  the  crime  is 
prescribed a more severe punishment that a summary fine and  

1. the entrepreneur has not done what could reasonably be required of him for prevention of 
the crime, or 

2. the crime has been committed by 

a) a person who has a leading position based on a power of representation of the entrepreneur 
or an authority to take decisions on behalf of the entrepreneur, or 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
b)  a  person  who  otherwise  has  had  a  special  responsibility  of  supervision  or  control  of  the 
business. 

SE meets the requirements of Article 5(1) 

United Kingdom 

UK authorities informed that the general provision concerning legal persons is made under the 
Interpretation Act 1978, which (in its Schedule1) provides that unless the contrary is stated, 
the word ‘person’ in a statute is to be construed as including a ‘body of persons, corporate or 
incorporate’. No exception is made for the statutes on corruption and therefore legal persons 
can  be  prosecuted  for  corruption.  In  the  case  of  crimes  such  as  corruption,  which  involves 
“mens rea”, attribution of responsibility to the legal person depends on finding someone with 
an appropriate level of authority within the organisation who has the mental state in question. 
This means that in the UK corporate liability is based on the third alternative in Article 5(1), 
namely ‘an authority to exercise control within the legal person.’ 

UK meets the requirements of Article 5(1) 

1.4.5.  Article 5(2) Analysis of Member States 

Belgium 

Since in the previous report the Commission retained that there was insufficient information 
to assess whether BE meets the requirement of Article 5(2), FD and was requested to provide 
further commentary, Belgium provided the following information: 

Article  5  states  that  "any  legal  person  is  criminally  responsible  for  offences  that  are 
intrinsically linked to the achievement of its purposes or to defend its interests, or those with 
specific facts showing that they were committed on its behalf." The Commission's reasoning, 
that the wording is broad enough to include situations where there was lack of supervision or 
control,  is  correct  and  is  confirmed  by  the  explanatory  memorandum  to  the  Act  of  May  4, 
1999  introducing  criminal  liability  of  legal  persons  (legal  document  Senate,  session  1998-
1999, 1-1217/1 n0). This paper (an extract is included below) says that the corporation may be 
declared  criminally  liable  for  any  infringement  on  the  condition  that  it  was  committed  to 
achieving the object of the person moral, to promote its interests or for his account. No limits 
to the person who put the measure are introduced.  

« 1.2. Les comportements qui donnent lieu à la responsabilité 

En  ce  qui  concerne  les  comportements  qui  donnent  lieu  à  la  responsabilité  de  la  personne 
morale, la proposition prévoit que la personne morale est pénalement responsable pour tout 
type d'infraction, à la condition que celle-ci ait été commise en vue de la réalisation de l'objet 
de la personne morale, en vue de promouvoir son intérêt ou pour son compte." 

On  a  préféré  cette  formulation  plus  précise  à  celle,  plus  large,  adoptée  par  le  Conseil  de 
l'Europe dans sa recommandation 1988/18, qui vise tous les faits accomplis à l'occasion de 
l'exercice des activités de la personne morale. En effet, on estime que la responsabilité pénale 
de la personne morale ne doit être engagée que quand il existe un lien intrinsèque entre le fait 
infractionnel et la personne morale en tant que telle. Il ne paraît par contre pas approprié de 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
rendre la personne morale pénalement responsable de faits commis par des personnes ayant 
un lien avec elle (employés, administrateurs,...), quand celles-ci n'auraient fait que profiter du 
cadre juridique ou matériel de la personne morale pour commettre des infractions dans leur 
propre intérêt ou pour leur compte. Il ne s'agit pas d'instaurer une responsabilité objective de 
la personne morale pour tout fait quelconque commis en son sein. Ce point sera développé au 
point 1.3 à propos de l'élément intentionnel requis de la personne morale. 

À  l'inverse,  on  a  estimé  ne  pas  devoir  préciser  les  personnes  physiques  ou  les  organes  par 
lesquels la responsabilité pénale de la personne morale pourrait être engagée. En effet, cette 
indication aurait pour conséquence une limitation de la responsabilité gui ne se justifie pas, 
dans  la  mesure  où  elle  imposerait  une  double  imputation  des  faits,  à  savoir  à  la  personne 
morale et à des personnes physiques déterminées. En outre, dans l'hypothèse où l'intervention 
des  organes  serait  requise  pour  engager  la  responsabilité  de  la  personne  morale,  toute 
responsabilité  pourrait  être  éludée  par  le  simple  fait  pour  l'organe  de  ne  pas  acter  les 
décisions gui auraient un caractère illicite. » 

In consideration of the wide and specific explanation given, 

BE meets the requirements of Article 5(2), FD. 

Bulgaria 

There is no clear reference to the liability of the legal person in case of lack of supervision or 
control  and  it  does  not  seem  that  the  wording  of  Article  83(a)  would  encompass  such  a 
situation.  

BG does not meet the requirements of Article 5(2) 

Czech Republic 

See discussion above 

CZ does not meet the requirements of Article 5(2) 

Germany 

DE stated that the relevant provisions are sections 30 and 130, Administrative Offences Act. 
Section 30, Administrative Offences Act provides for the liability of a legal person where an 
administrative  or  criminal  offence  is  committed  by  certain  bodies  or  categories  of  natural 
person,  including  a  partner  or  executive  manager,  or  anyone  else  with  responsibility  for 
directing  the  business,  including  supervising  the  conduct  of  its  business  or  otherwise 
exercising  powers  of  control  in  a  management  position.  This  is  expanded  by  section  130, 
Administrative Offences Act which addresses the failure of supervision, whether intentionally 
or by negligence, to prevent, within the business or company, breaches of duties incumbent 
on the proprietor, which is made an administrative offence. 

DE meets the requirements of Article 5(2) 

Estonia 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
Estonia  informed  the  Commission  that  there  are  no  explicit  rules  concerning  the  lack  of 
supervision/duty of care. However, it is held that a legal person is responsible if an authorized 
representative  thereof  at  least  with  indirect  intent  (dolus  eventualis)  gives/accepts  a 
bribe/gratuity  in  the  interests  of  the  legal  person.  EE  also  reported  that  further  amendments 
depend on an analysis of the issue, until now postponed due to lack of court practice. 

Taking  note  of  the  above,  the  Commission  still  considers  that  the  situation  remains  unclear 
and  invites  Estonia  to  consider  criminalising  explicitly  the  legal  person  for  criminal  acts 
committed for its benefit by a person under its authority in the case where the legal person had 
not exercised due supervision or control. 

EE does not meet the requirements of Article 5(2) 

Ireland 

Section 9 of the Act of 2001 as amended by the Act of 2010, provides that liability may be 
imposed for an offence by a corporate body which "is proved to have been committed with 
the consent, connivance or approval of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part 
of  (…)".  IE  informed  also  that,  in  certain  circumstances,  under  Irish  law  the  acts  of  the 
controlling  officers  of  a  legal  person  are  viewed  as  constituting  the  acts  of  the  legal  person 
itself. Thus in the case of corruption offences, the crimes of a company's controlling officers 
are  the  crimes  of  the  corporation  itself.  See  for  instance,  Superwood  Holdings  plc  v.  Sun 
Alliance and London Insurance Plc [1995] 3 IR, 30. 

IE meets the requirements of Article 5(2) 

Greece 

Art. 10 par. 2 Law 3560/2007 foresees:  

"2. 
The same sanctions shall be imposed on the legal person where the lack of supervision 
or control by a natural person referred to in par. 1 has made possible the commission of the 
criminal offences mentioned in the same paragraph by a natural person under its authority." 

EL meets the requirements of Article 5(2), FD. 

France 

There is no direct reference in article 121-2 to the case of lack of supervision,  however  the 
legal person can be held liable for offences perpetrated by an organ or person with power of 
representation.  The  wording  appears  sufficiently  wide  to  encompass  this  possibility,  but 
similarly to the assessment made in 2007 further clarification would be welcomed.  

There is insufficient information to assess whether FR meets the requirements of Article 5(2) 

Italy 

See discussion on art 5(1) 

IT does not meet the requirements of art 5(2) 

Cyprus 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
CY  in  its  Law  Ratifying  the  Criminal  Law  Convention  of  Corruption  of  the  CoE  expressly 
refers  to  the  art.  18  of  the  Convention,  introducing  the  concept  of  corporate  liability  into 
domestic legislation. Art. 18 (2) establishes liability in cases of lack of supervision. 

CY meets the requirements of Article 5(2) 

Latvia 

This is not directly addressed in Chapter VIII. While there is a reference in Section 70(8) to 
the Court, in applying coercive measures, observing certain conditions such as the nature and 
consequences  of  the  acts  of  the  legal  person  (subsection  (2)  and  the  measures  taken  by  the 
legal person in order to prevent the committing of new criminal offences (subsection(3), it is 
unclear whether a court could thereby hold a legal person liable where its lack of supervision 
or control has made possible the commission of the offence, as required by Article 5(2). 

There is insufficient information to assess whether LV meets the requirements of Article 5(2), 
FD. 

Luxembourg 

Legal  persons  are  liable  for  the  criminal  acts  of  active  and  passive  corruption  without  any 
limiting requirement as to the absence of supervision or control. This approach is broader than 
the FD. 

LU meets the requirements of Article 5(2) 

Hungary 

The  relevant  legislation  is  section  2(2),  Act  CIV  of  2001  on  measures  Applicable  to  legal 
persons:  

"(2) The measures specified in paragraph (1) shall also apply to cases where committing the 
criminal act produced an advantage for the legal person, and the chief executive or partner or 
employee entitled to represent, or the official, manager or member of the supervisory board 
was aware of the crime being committed." 

The article does not make express reference to lack of supervision or control and the wording, 
on the contrary, seems to limit the liability to the cases where the persons with the authority to 
exercise control have knowledge of the crime perpetrated. 

HU does not meet the requirements of Article 5(2) 

Malta 

The relevant legislation is Article 121D of the Criminal Code. No direct reference is made to 
the liability for lack of supervision or control and the wording of the article does not seem to 
encompass this particular case. 

MT does not meet the requirements of Article 5(2) 

The Netherlands 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
No  specific  provision  was  submitted.  However,  NL  was  fully  compliant  according  to  the 
previous report and no further modifications in the legislation were referred. 

NL meets the requirements of Article 5(2), FD. 

Austria 

Article  3(3)  of  the  new  Law  on  the  Liability  of  Associations,  provides  that  in  the  case  of 
criminal offences by employees, the association shall be liable if 

"[..]2.  the  committing  of  the  offence  was  made  possible  or  considerably  easier  because 
decision-makers  failed  to  exercise  the  reasonable  care  required  by  the  circumstances, 
particularly by failing to take essential technical, organizational or staff measures to prevent 
such acts." 

AT meets the requirements of Article 5(2), FD. 

Poland 

Poland  made  reference  to  the  same  Articles  provided  for  the  previous  report  acording  to 
which  Polish  legislation  was  fully  compliant  to  the  requirements.  While  the  full  text  of  the 
Articles was not provided, no further modification in the legislation have been referred. 

PL meets the requirements of Article 5(2), FD. 

Portugal 

Portugal  informed  that  the  Commission  that  the  relevant  legislation  is  Article  4  of  Law  No 
20/2008  of  21  April  (liability  of  legal  persons)  which  establishes  liability  and  refers  to  the 
general provisions of the Criminal Code. Article 10 of the Criminal Code states that: " When 
a legal type of crime includes a certain result, the fact comprises not only the action proper to 
produce it, as the omission of the action proper to avoid it, except if the intention of the law is 
different.  The  commission  of  a  result  by  omission  is  only  punishable  when  the  omissive 
person is under a legal duty that personally obliges him to avoid that result." 

PT meets the requirements of Article 5(2) 

Romania 

The relevant legislation is provided in the Criminal Code under Article 19. Romania informs 
that considering the novelty of the provisions relating to the legal entity, the meaning of the 
judicial  practice  cannot  be  anticipated.  There  is  not  direct  reference  to  liability  for  lack  of 
supervision  or  control;  however  the  wording  seems  wide  enough  to  encompass  also  this 
particular case. Further clarification is required. 

RO appears to meet the requirements of Article5 (2) 

Slovenia 

The Criminal Liability of Legal Entities Act provides that a legal person may be liable for a 
criminal  offence  laid  down  in  Articles  241  and  242  of  the  Criminal  Code.  Concerning 
instigation, aiding and abetting, and concealment, as laid down in Article 3 of the Framework 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
Decision, the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code apply by analogy to legal 
persons.  The  grounds  for  a  liability  of  legal  persons  are  laid  down  in  Article  4  of  the 
ZOPOKD-B which provides: 

"Article 4 

A legal person shall be liable for a criminal offence committed by the perpetrator in the name 
of, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the legal person: 

1.  if  the  committed  criminal  offence  constitutes  carrying  out  an  unlawful  decision,  order  or 
endorsement by its management or supervisory bodies; 

2.  if  its  management  or  supervisory  bodies  influenced  the  perpetrator  or  enabled  him  to 
commit the criminal offence; 

3.  if  it  gains  an  unlawfully  obtained  pecuniary  benefit  or  uses  objects  resulting  from  the 
criminal offence; 

4. if its management or supervisory bodies have omitted due supervision over the legality of 
actions of employees subordinate to them." 

SI meets the requirements of Article 5(2) 

Slovakia 

See earlier discussion on art 5 (1) 

There is insufficient information to assess whether SK meets the requirements of Article 5(2), 
FD. 

Finland 

As stated in the 2007 report, in the Criminal Code, section 2 chapter 9 cover lack of due care 
and  diligence  which  has  allowed  the  commission  of  an  offence.  At  the  same  time,  no 
corporate fine is to be imposed if the offence is not reported by the injured party so as to have 
charges brought, unless it is extremely important to public interest that charges be brought". 
This was considered a significant limitation on the prosecution of a legal person, and therefore 
the legislation was considered as partly compliant with the requirements in 2005. 

FI partly meets the requirements of Article 5(2) 

Sweden 

Chapter 36 - section 7, Criminal Code provides for a penalty of a fine where a crime has been 
committed by a legal person in the exercise of business activities. One of the two conditions 
to  be  met  is  a  requirement  that  the  legal  person  has  not  done  what  could  reasonably  be 
required  of  it  to  prevent  the  crime,  which  appears  broad  enough  to  meet  the  intention  of 
Article 5(2), FD that MS provide for liability of legal persons "where the lack of supervision 
or control by a person referred to in Article 5(1), FD has made possible the commission of an 
offence  of  the  type  referred  to  in  Articles  2  and  3  for  the  benefit  of  that  legal  person  by  a 
person under its authority". 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
SE meets the requirements of Article 5(2) 

United Kingdom 

UK  authorities  provided  the  same  information  as  for  the  previous  report.  The  Commission 
considered  in  2007  that  UK  did  not  meet  the  requirements,  because  the  internal  legislation 
failed to address the question of the legal person's criminal liability. The Commission did not 
consider that administrative or civil sanctions alone are sufficient.  

However, in the meantime the new Bribery Act 2010 has established an offence of failure of 
commercial organizations to prevent bribery. It addresses the lack of supervision.  

UK meets the requirements of Article 5(2) 

1.4.6.  Article 5(3) Analysis of Member States 

Belgium  

Belgium already met the requirements in 2005, no further changes occurred. 

BE meets the requirements of Article 5(3), FD. 

Bulgaria 

Article  83a  (2)  and  (3)  clarifies  that  a  fine  shall  also  be  imposed  on  the  legal  person, 
independently of the criminal liability of the perpetrator of the crime. Therefore it seems clear 
that the liability of the natural person who materially acted is encompassed. 

BG meets the requirements of Article 5(3). 

Czech Republic 

See earlier discussion on art 5(1). 

CZ does not meet the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Germany 

German authorities informed that in the case of criminal offences committed by persons from 
the management echelons of legal persons and other associations of persons, under § 30 Law 
on  the  Administrative  Offences,  German  law  provides  for  a  fine  as  a  penalty  against  the 
undertaking.  This  fine  is  imposed  in  addition  to  the  penalty  against  the  natural  person, 
meaning that criminal prosecution of the natural person is still possible. This follows not just 
from  the  general  principles  of  German  criminal  law  and  the  German  law  of  criminal 
procedure, but also from the provision in § 30(4) Law on the Administrative Offences, under 
which a fine may be imposed on a legal person independently, i.e. independent of proceedings 
against the natural person, in exceptional circumstances only.  

DE meets the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Estonia 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
 
 
Paragraph 14(2) of the Penal Code, entered into force 01.09.2002 forsees that prosecution of a 
legal person does not preclude prosecution of the natural person who committed the offence. 

EE meets the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Ireland 

Ireland  informed  that  the  requirements  of  Art.  5(3)  are  satisfied  as  criminal  proceedings 
against natural persons in respect of such offences are not precluded under Irish law, without 
submitting  the  legislation  referred.  However,  Ireland  was  compliant  with  the  requirements 
under article 5(3) in 2005 and no changes have been mentioned.  

IE appears to meet the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Greece 

Art. 10 par. 1 law 3560/2007 foresees that liability of legal person shall be, "in addition to the 
criminal  liability  of  the  [..]  natural  person",  making  express  reference  to  natural  persons 
"acting either as perpetrator, instigator or accessory". 

EL meets the requirements of Article 5(3) 

France 

Art. 121-2 of the Criminal Code states,  

"La responsabilité pénale des personnes morales n'exclut pas celle des personnes physiques 
auteurs ou complices des mêmes faits, sous réserve des dispositions du quatrième alinéa de 
l'article 121-3."  

It  therefore  clearly  underlines  that  liability  of  legal  person  does  not  exclude  criminal 
proceedings  against  natural  persons  who  are  involved  as  perpetrators,  instigators  or 
accessories. 

FR meets the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Italy 

See discussion above. 

IT does not meet the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Cyprus 

CY  in  its  Law  Ratifying  the  Criminal  Law  Convention  of  Corruption  of  the  CoE  expressly 
refers  to  the  art.  18  of  the  Convention,  introducing  the  concept  of  corporate  liability  into 
domestic legislation. Art. 18 (3) states that liability of legal persons does not exclude criminal 
proceedings against natural persons involved as perpetrators, instigators or accessories.  

CY meets the requirements of the Art 5(3).  

Latvia 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
 
Section 12, Chapter I General Part provides for the criminal liability of a natural person who 

has committed a criminal offence, even where in the service of a legal person. 

LV meets the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Luxembourg 

Art. 34 of the Penal code provides  

"La responsabilité pénale des personnes morales n'exclut pas celle des personnes physiques 
auteurs ou complices des mêmes infractions." 

LU meets the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Hungary 

Prosecution of a legal person does not preclude prosecution of the natural person, as can be 
deduced from Art. 3. 2  

"The measures specified in paragraph (1) shall also apply where the criminal act produced a 
financial advantage for the legal person, but the perpetrator cannot be punished because of his 
death or his mental state."  

It seems that the legal person shall be liable even tough the natural person is not, that suggests 
that criminal proceedings against natural persons are not excluded. There is however no clear 
reference  and  is  unclear  if  the  natural  person  is  considered  just  the  perpetrator  or  even  the 
instigator or accessory. 

HU appears to meet the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Malta 

No  specific  provision  was  submitted  addressing  Article  5(3),  FD.  The  relevant  legislation 
referred,  Article  121  D  and  Article  121(3)  do  not  make  any  reference  to  the  possibility  of 
proceed against the legal person and also against the natural persons who are involved in the 
committed crime. But the art 121 D states that – where a natural person was found guilty for 
the offences laid down in the FD, this person "shall (…) be deemed to be vested with the legal 
representation  of  the  same  body  corporate  which  shall  be  liable  to  the  payment  of  a  fine 
(multa)  of  not  less  than  one  thousand  and  one  hundred  and  sixty-four  euro  and  sixty  nine 
cents (1,164.69) and not more than one million and one hundred and sixty-four thousand and 
six  hundred  and  eighty-six  euro  and  seventy  cents  1,164,686.70).  This  appears  to  meet  the 
requirements of the FD.  

MT meets the requirements of Article 5(3) 

The Netherlands 

No  specific  provision  was  submitted.  However,  NL  was  fully  compliant  according  to  the 
previous report and no further modifications in the legislation were referred. 

NL meets the requirements of Article 5(3) 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
Austria 

Section  3(4)  of  the  New  Law  on  Liability  of  Associations  provides  that  "an  association's 
liability for an act and the possibility of punishing decision-makers or employees on account 
of the same act shall not be mutually exclusive." 

AT meets the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Poland 

PL made reference to the same Articles provided for the previous report according to which 
Polish  legislation  was  fully  compliant  to  the  requirements.  The  full  text  of  the  mentioned 
articles was not provided, however, no further modifications in the legislation were referred. 

PL meets the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Portugal 

Portugal  informed  that  the  Commission  that  the  relevant  legislation  is  Article  4  of  Law  No 
20/2008  of  21  April  (liability  of  legal  persons)  which  establishes  liability  and  refers  to  the 
general provisions of the Criminal Code. In addition, according to the previous report "Article 
2,  Decree-Law  No.  28/84  provides  that  a  person  representing  a  legal  person  is  themselves 
liable for an offence undertaken on the legal person's behalf, while Article 3(3) provides that 
even  if  the  legal  person  is  liable,  this  does  not  preclude  the  liability  of  the  individual 
perpetrator(s)." 

Moreover, art. Article 12 of the Criminal Code states that" Whoever acts voluntarily as head 
of  an  organ  of  a  corporation,  society  or  mere  de  facto  association,  or  in  legal  or  voluntary 
representation of another, is punishable, even when the respective crime type requires: 

a) Certain personal elements and these are only present in the person of the represented; or 

b) That the agent executes the act in its own interest and the representative acts in the interest 
of the represented" 

PT meets the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Romania 

Art. 5(3) is transposed by Article 191(2) of the Criminal Code. 

"(2) Criminal liability of the legal entity does not exclude the criminal liability of the natural 
person who contributed by any means to the commitment of the same offence." 

RO meets the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Slovenia 

Article 5(2) of the ZOPOKD-B expressly provides that the liability of a legal person does not 
exclude  a  criminal  liability  of  natural  persons  or  persons  responsible  for  the  committed 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
 
criminal  offence.  As  a  general  rule,  for  the  same  criminal  offence,  a  procedure  against  the 
legal entity is initiated and conducted together with the procedure against the perpetrator. 

‘Article 5 

(1)  Subject  to  the  conditions  in  the  preceding  Article,  a  legal  person  shall  be  liable  for  a 
criminal  offence  even  when  the  perpetrator  is  not  guilty  or  when  he  committed  the  offence 
under force or threat by the legal entity.  

(2)  The  liability  of  a  legal  person  does  not  preclude  criminal  liability  of  natural  persons  or 
responsible persons for the committed criminal offence. 

[..] 

(4) If a legal person has no other body besides the perpetrator who could lead or supervise the 
perpetrator,  the  legal  person  shall  be  liable  for  the  committed  criminal  offence  within  the 
limits of the perpetrator’s guilt.’ 

SI meets the requirements of Article 5(3) 

Slovakia 

See discussion above on art 5(1). 

There is no sufficient information to assess whether SK meets the requirements of Article 5(3). 

Finland 

No specific provision was provided in this respect.  

There is insufficient information to assess whether FI meets the requirements. 

Sweden 

The legislation supplied by SE does not appear to include a specific provision in this regard. 
However, it is noted that Chapter 36 - Section 10 sets out a number of criteria for remission or 
reduction  of  the  corporate  penalty,  one  of  which  is  where  the  relevant  natural  person  has 
received  a  penalty.  This  would  seem  to  imply  that  liability  of  the  legal  person  does  not 
exclude criminal proceedings against natural persons. 

SE meets the requirements of Article 5 (3), FD. 

United Kingdom 

UK  explains  that  with  regard  to  5(3),  FD,  the  liability  of  a  legal  person  does  not  preclude 
criminal  proceedings  against  natural  persons  who  are  involved  in  the  commission  of  an 
offence of the type referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of the FD.  

UK meets the requirements of Article 5 (3), FD. 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Article 6 – Penalties for legal persons 

1.5.1.  General comments 

1.5.2.  This article requires Member States to establish effective, proportionate sanctions 
for  legal  persons  (criminal  or  non-criminal)  for  active  and  passive  corruption, 
instigation  and  abetting  and  for  lack  of  supervision  or  control,  which  made  the 
commission of the offence possible. It also gives examples of sanctions which may 
be imposed, such as exclusion from public benefits or aids, disqualification from 
the practice, judicial supervision or judicial winding-up order.  

1.5.3. 

Summary table of the transposing legislation adopted by Member States 

Measures  which  appeared 
to 
Commission's  analysis  (where  different  to 
MS' citations) 

relevant 

MS 

Legislation 

BE   Art.  7  bis,  41bis,  and  50ter  of  Criminal 

Code 

Art.  2  Law  26  June  2000  in  relation  to  the 
introduction  of  Euro  in  the  legislation 
concerning  the  subject  covered  by  art.  78 
Constitution.  

BG  Art. 83a penal code 

CZ 

Bill to be laid before the Parliament 

DK 

- 

Section 25, Criminal Code (2007 report) 

DE 

§§  30  and  130  Law  on  Administrative 
offences (OWiG) 

EE 

Penal code art. 293, 294, 297, 298 

IE 

Section  9  Act  2001  in  conjunction  with 
Corruption Acts 1899-2001 

Section 1  

Art. 10 par. 1,2,3 law 3560/2007 

- 

EL 

ES 

FR   Art. 131-9, 445-4 Criminal Code 

IT 

No provision to address this Article 

CY  No particular provisions 

LV 

Chapter  VII  "Coercive  measures  applicable 
to legal persons" Criminal Law 

LT 

No provision 

Articles  43,  47,  52  and  53,  Criminal  Code, 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(2007 report) 

Article  7-8,  Decree-Law  no.  28/84  (2007 
report) 

New penal code: title Vi Criminal Liability 
of Juridical Persons 

LU   Draft  legislation  to  provide  for  the  penalty 

of fines is under preparation 

HU  Art.  3  Act  CIV  of  2001  on  the  Criminal 

Law measures applicable to legal persons 

MT   Art. 121D Criminal Code 

NL 

Sections  23,  51  Criminal  Code  as  well  as 
the provisions cited in relation to Articles 2 
and 3, FD 

AT 

Law on Corporate Criminal Liability 

PL 

Criminality  Liability  of  Bodies  Corporate 
Act of 28 October 20022, article, 7, 8, 9. 

PT 

No provision to address this Article 

RO  Art. 53 Criminal Code 

SI 

Art. 12 ZOPOKD-B 

SK 

Draft legislation is under preparation 

FI 

Criminal  code,  chapter  9,  section  5,  6,  and 
8.  

SE  

Chapter 36, section 7-10 Criminal Code 

UK  

Interpretation Act 1978 

1.5.4. 

Summary account of the transposition 

Since both Articles 5 and 6 deal with liability of legal persons, as in 2007, the difficulties and 
gaps  in  Member  States  legislation  or  in  the  information  supplied,  impacted  on  the  rate  of 
transposition of Article 6.  

16 MS (BE, DK, DE, IE, EL, FR, LT, LU, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SE, UK) transposed the 
Article 6. Further clarification however is required from RO and UK.  

5  MS  (BG,  EE,  LV,  HU,  FI)  have  partly  met  the  requirements  of  the  Article  6.  FI  was 
requested  to  provide  further  clarifications  as  to  the  limitations  of  corporate  liability.  4  MS 
(CZ, IT, CY, MT) did not transpose the Article 6, ES did not supply any information, and SK 
did not supply its new law on criminal liability of legal persons, therefore it was impossible to 
assess whether or not SK meets the requirements of this Article.  

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The level of implementation of the art. 6(1), obliging MS to establish liability of legal persons 
for  active/passive  bribery  was  higher  than  for  Art  6  (2)  since  20  MS  have  implemented  its 
provisions.  As  regard  Art.  6  (2)  4  MS  (LV,  BG,  HU,  SK)  did  not  provide  sufficient 
information or did not refer to liability in cases of lack of supervision at all.  

1.5.4.1.  Summary table of the transposition 

MS  Article 6(1) 

Article 6(2) 

Comments 

BE   Meets the requirements 

Meets the requirements 

BE has transposed Article 6 

BG  Meets the requirements 

There 
is 
information 
whether  BG  meets 
requirements 

insufficient 
assess 
the 

to 

BG  has  partly 
Article 6 

transposed 

CZ 

Does 
requirements 

not  meet 

the 

Does 
requirements 

not  meet 

the 

CZ  has  not 
Article 6 

transposed 

DK  Met  the  requirements  in  the 

2007 assessment 

Met  the  requirements  in  the 
2007 assessment 

DK has transposed Article 6 

(2007) 

DE  Meets the requirements 

Meets the requirements 

DE has transposed Article 6 

EE  Meets the requirements 

Does 
requirements 

not  meet 

the 

EE  has  partly 
Article 6 

transposed 

IE 

Meets the requirements 

Meets the requirements 

IE has transposed Article 6 

EL  Meets the requirements 

Meets the requirements 

EL has transposed Article 6 

ES 

- 

- 

There 
is 
insufficient 
assess 
information 
whether  ES  has  transposed 
Article 6 

to 

FR   Meets the requirements 

Meets the requirements 

FR has transposed Article 6 

IT 

Does 
requirements 

not  meet 

the 

Does 
requirements 

not  meet 

the 

IT has not transposed Article 
6 

CY  Does 

not  meet 

the 

requirements 

Does 
requirements 

not  meet 

the 

CY did not transpose Article 
6 

LV  Meets the requirements 

Does 
requirements 

not  meet 

the 

LV  has  partly 
Article 6 

transposed 

LT  Met  the  requirements  in  the 

2007 assessment 

Met  the  requirements  in  the 
2007 assessment 

LT has transposed Article 6 

LU   Meets the requirements 

Meets the requirements 

LU has transposed Article 6 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
MS  Article 6(1) 

Article 6(2) 

Comments 

HU  Meets the requirements 

There 
is 
information 
whether  HU  meets 
requirements 

insufficient 
assess 
the 

to 

HU  has  partly 
Article 6 

transposed 

MT   Meets the requirements 

Does 
requirements 

not  meet 

the 

MT  has  not 
Article 6 

transposed 

NL  Meets the requirements 

Meets the requirements 

NL has transposed Article 6 

AT  Meets the requirements 

Meets the requirements 

AT has transposed Article 6 

PL  Meets the requirements 

Meets the requirements 

PL has transposed Article 6 

PT  Meets the requirements 

Meets the requirements 

PT has transposed Article 6 

RO  Meets the requirements 

to  meet 

Appears 
requirements, 
clarifications needed 

the 
further 

RO 
to 
appears 
transposed Article 6 

have 

SI 

Meets the requirements 

Meets the requirements 

SI has transposed Article 6 

SK 

New law not provided 

New law not provided 

There 
is 
insufficient 
assess 
information 
whether  SK  has  transposed 
Article 6 

to 

FI 

Partly 
requirements 

meets 

the 

Partly 
requirements 

meets 

the 

FI  has  partly 
Article 6 

transposed 

SE   Meets the requirements 

UK   Appears 

to  meet 

the 
(clarification 

requirements 
on Scotland required) 

Appears 
requirements 

to  meet 

Meets the requirements 

the 

SE has transposed Article 6 

appears 

UK 
to 
transposed Article 6 

have 

1.5.5.  Article 6(1) Analysis of Member States 

Belgium 

The relevant articles are the following: art. 7 bis, 41 bis and 504 ter of the Penal Code and the 
art. 2 of the Law of 26 June 2000 on introduction of Euro, Royal decree no 22 of 24 October 
1934 and the Law of 15 June 2000 on public procurement.  

Article  7bis,  Criminal  Code  provides  that  a  fine  can  be  imposed  on  a  legal  entity  which  is 
convicted  of  an  offence,  including  a  criminal  offence,  and  Article  41bis,  Criminal  Code 
provides further information  on the  level of such fines. The fine's level is dependent  on  the 
sanction available under the individual Article which creates the offence. For example, if the 
specific article foresees a penalty and a fine, or only one of these penalties – the minimal fine 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
 
of  500  Euro  multiplied  by  the  number  of  months  of  the  minimum  imprisonment  penalty  is 
applied.  However  this  amount  cannot  be  lesser  than  the  minimum  fine  foreseen  for  the 
offence.  The  maximum  fine  equals  2000  Euro  multiplied  by  the  number  of  months  of  the 
maximum imprisonment penalty, and at least double of the maximum of the fine provided for 
the offence.  

Art. 504 ter provides "En cas de corruption privée, la peine sera un emprisonnement de six 
mois  à  deux  ans  et  une  amende  de  100  francs  à  10  000  francs  ou  une  de  ces  peines. 
 § 2. Dans le cas où la sollicitation visée à l'article 504bis, § 1er, est suivie d'une proposition 
visée  à  l'article  504bis,  §  2,  de  même,  que  dans  le  cas  où  la  proposition  visée  à  l'article 
504bis,  §  2,  est  acceptée,  la  peine  sera  un  emprisonnement  de  six  mois  à  trois  ans  et  une 
amende de 100 francs à 50 000 francs ou une de ces peines." 

Art.2  of  the  Law  of  26  June  2000  in  introduction  of  Euro  states  that  the  amounts  of  fines 
expressed in Belgian francs are to be multiplied by 5,5.  

In addition, accessory sanctions may be applied, and they include disqualification for a period 
between  3  to  10  years  from  the  practice  and  exclusion  from  participation  to  public 
procurement. 

BE meets the requirements of Article 6(1), FD. 

Bulgaria 

Art. 83 a provides that a legal person can be held liable, and a fine of one million BGN shall 
be imposed, and in any case not less that an amount equal to the corporeal advantage derived; 
where the advantage is incorporeal or its value cannot be determined, a fine from 5000 to 100 
000 BGN shall be imposed.  

A  fine  shall  also  be  imposed  on  a  legal  person  where  persons  having  a  power  of 
representation,  monitoring  or  supervising  of  the  legal  person  have  incited  or  aided  the 
perpetration of the crime or attempted crime. The maximum amount of the fine is one million 
BGN, but not less than an amount equal to the corporate advantage derived shall be imposed; 
where  the  advantage  is  incorporeal  or  its  value  cannot  be  determined,  a  fine  from  five 
thousand BGN up to a maximum of one hundred thousand BGN shall be imposed. 

BG meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Czech Republic 

See discussion on art. 5 

CZ does not meet the requirements of Article 6(1), FD. 

Denmark 

Was considered compliant in 2007 report 

Germany 

With regard to the binding provision contained in Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision, a 
fine is provided for by German law under § 30 Law on Administrative Offences undertakings 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
where corruption offences are committed in the private sector. Insofar as Article 6(1) makes 
provision  for  further  optional  penalties,  DE  explains  that  it  has  not  made  any  use  of  such 
penalties.  However,  German  law  does  also  recognise  other  non-criminal  measures  against 
legal  persons,  including  for  example  a  prohibition  on  trading  or  the  winding-up  of  a  legal 
person.  However,  DE  authorities  make  no  clear  reference  to  the  mentioned  alternative 
measures, nor do they supply the text. 

According to the art. 30 (2) of the above mentioned law, the fine shall amount to: 

1. a maximum of one million euros in the case of a criminal offence committed with intent, 

2.  a  maximum  of  five  hundred  thousand  euros  in  the  case  of  a  criminal  offence  committed 
recklessly" 

DE meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Estonia 

With  regard  to  active  corruption,  the  penalty  in  respect  of  a  legal  person  which  grants  or 
promises a gratuity is a fine (section 297(3), Criminal Code). The penalty in respect of a legal 
person  which  grants  or  promises  a  bribe  is  a  fine  (section  298  (3),  Criminal  Code)  and,  if 
committed at least twice, is a fine or compulsory dissolution (section 298 (4), Criminal Code). 

With  regard  to  passive  corruption,  the  penalty  in  respect  of  a  legal  person,  which  accepts  a 
gratuity, whether committed once, twice or more often, whether the gratuity was demanded, 
whether it was accepted by a group or on a large-scale basis, is a fine (section 293, Criminal 
Code). The penalty in respect of a legal person which accepts a bribe is punishable by a fine 
(section 294(3), Criminal Code). If committed two or more times, if demanded, if accepted by 
a group or on a large-scale. 

An act provided for in § 293 (1) or (2), § 294(1), § 297 (1) or (2) or § 298(1), if committed by 
a legal person, is punishable by a pecuniary punishment. An act provided for in § 194(2) or § 
298(2),  if  committed  by  a  legal  person,  is  punishable  by  a  pecuniary  punishment  or 
compulsory dissolution. 

Of the penalties indicated on the FD, in Estonia, relevant bans exist under public procurement 
law  and  state  aid  law,  related  to  the  possibility  to  entitle  public  benefits  or  aid;  judicial 
winding-up  order  are  possible  under  aggravating  circumstances  for  accepting/giving  bribe, 
while temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities and 
placing under judicial supervision are not available. 

EE meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Ireland 

The requirements of Article 6(1) are met by section 9 of the Act of 2010, in conjunction with 
the penalties laid down in the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889-2001. These sections, when 
taken together, enable a fine without a predetermined maximum level to be imposed where a 
legal person is found liable.  

IE meets the requirements of Article 6(1)  

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
Greece 

Article 10 of the law 3560/2007 at paragraph 1 provides that the following sanctions shall be 
imposed on the legal person: 

a) an administrative fine up to three times the value of the advantage achieved or pursued, or 

b)  temporary,  or,  in  case  of  recidivism,  permanent  disqualification  from  the  practice  of 
business activities; or 

c) temporary or permanent expulsion from entitlement to public benefits or aid." 

At paragraph 3 provides that the aforementioned sanctions do not exclude the possibility of 
other sanctions. 

EL meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

France 

Article  445-4  provides  for  penalties  for  a  legal  person  convicted  of  active  or  passive 
corruption which, FR informs the Commission, is a fine of 5 times that for a natural person, 
namely 375,000 Euros (article 131-38 criminal code). 

FR  provided  all  the  relevant  legislation  mentioned  in  the  previous  report  and  not  submitted 
then.  They  provide  for  a  number  of  additional  sanctions,  such  as  for  example  winding-up 
order,  temporary  or  permanent  disqualification,  judicial  supervision,  exclusion  from 
participation  to  public  procurement.  Further  analysis  of  these  provisions  allows  to  conclude 
that:  

FR meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Cyprus 

Although the concept of corporate liability has been introduced into CY legislation following 
the Ratification of the CoE Convention on Corruption, implementing measures as to the level 
and  nature  of  the  sanctions  are  still  needed.  A  new  Bill  to  address  these  issues  is  currently 
under preparation.  

CY does not meet the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Latvia 

Section 70(2)(3) provides that only a monetary levy may be applied to a legal person which 
has committed an offence under the Special Part of this Law (thereby including the offences 
listed at sections 196 and 199 of Chapter XIX Special Part), where that offence is at the level 
of  a  criminal  violation  (which  carries  a  term  of  imprisonment  of  less  than  2  years)  (section 
7(2),  Chapter  II,  Criminal  Offences)  or  of  a  less  serious  crime  (which  carries  a  term  of 
imprisonment exceeding 2 years) (section 7(3), Chapter II, Criminal Offences). In the case of 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
 
 
serious  crimes  and  especially  serious  crimes,  there  is  provision  for  a  range  of  penalties: 
liquidation, limitation of rights, and confiscation of property or the application of a monetary 
levy (section 7(4), Chapter II, Criminal Offences). 

LV meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Luxembourg 

Art.  34  of  the  Penal  Code,  as  amended  by  the  law  of  3  March  2010,  provides  that  legal 
persons can be held liable and the penalties are foreseen in Art. 35-38: 

"Art.  35.  Les  peines  criminelles  ou  correctionnelles  encourues  par  les  personnes  morales 
sont: 

l'amende, dans les conditions et suivant les modalités prévues par l'article 36; 
la confiscation spéciale; 
l'exclusion de la participation aux marchés publics; 
l'exclusion du bénéfice d'un avantage ou d'une aide publique; 
la. dissolution, dans les conditions et suivant les modalités prévues par l'article 38. 

Art 36. L'amende en matière criminelle et correctionnelle applicable aux personnes morales 
est  de  500  euros  au  moins.  En  matière  criminelle  le  taux  maximum  de  l'amende  applicable 
aux personnes morales est de 750 000 Euro. En matière correctionnelle est égal au double de 
celle prévue pour les personnes physiques.  

Lorsqu'aucune amende n'est prévue à l'égard des personnes physiques par la loi qui réprime 
l'infraction, le taux maximum de l'amende applicable aux personnes morales ne peut excéder 
le  double  de  la  somme  obtenue  par  multiplication  du  maximum,  de  la  peine  privative  de 
liberté  prévue,  exprimée  en  jours,  par  le  montant  pris  en  considération  en  matière  de 
contrainte par corps." 

If the legal person is held liable for private corruption, passive and active the maximum fines 
provided for in art. 36 are multiplied by 5. 

Art. 38 provides  than  in  case of particular  serious  crime,  the  dissolution  of  the legal  person 
can be pronounced by the Court. 

LU meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Hungary 

There is no indication of possibility of placing the legal entity under judicial supervisor, but 
exclusion  from  public  benefits  and  aid,  disqualification  and  judicial  winding-up  order  are 
foreseen in the art. 4, 5 and 6 of the Act CIV 2001. 

HU meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Italy 

In its notification IT stated there was no provision to cover this article.  

IT does not meet the requirements of Article 6 (1) 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
Malta 

Art. 121D of the Criminal Code provides that "Where the person found guilty of an offence 
under this title is the director, manager, secretary or other principal officer of a body corporate 
or is a person having a power of representation of such a body or having an authority to take 
decisions on behalf of that body or having authority to exercise control within that body and 
the offence of which that person was found guilty was committed for the benefit, in part or in 
whole, of that body corporate, the said person shall for the purposes of this title be deemed to 
be vested with the legal representation of the same body corporate which shall be liable to the 
payment of a fine (multa) of not less than one thousand and one hundred and sixty-four euro 
and sixty nine cents (1,164.69) and not more than one million and one hundred and sixty-four 
thousand and six hundred and eighty-six euro and seventy cents (1,164,686.70)" 

None of the other additional penalties is foreseen. 

MT meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

The Netherlands 

No particular provision was submitted for this particular Article, however NL was compliant 
with  the  requirements  for  the  previous  report.  The  Commission  assumes  that  no  further 
changes occurred. 

NL meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Austria 

Art. 1 § 4. of the law on the Liability of Associations provides that if an association is liable 
for  a  criminal  offence,  it  shall  be  subject  to  a  corporate  fine.  The  corporate  fine  shall  be 
determined in per diem rates. It shall amount to at least one per diem rate. The per diem rate 
shall be determined according to the income situation of the association, with due regard for 
its general economic performance. It shall be set at an amount corresponding to 1/360th of the 
annual income, or a figure which is no more than one-third above or below that amount, but 
subject  to  a  minimum  of  EUR 50  and  a  maximum  of  EUR 10 000.  If  the  association  is  for 
charitable,  humanitarian  or  religious  purposes  (§§ 34  to  47  of  the  Bundesabgabenordnung 
[Austrian Fiscal Code], BGBl. No. 194/1961) or is otherwise not-for-profit, the per diem rate 
shall be set at a minimum of EUR 2 and a maximum of EUR 500. 

It  is  not  indicated  whether  other types  of  penalty  such  as  those  listed  at  (a)  –  (d)  of  Article 
6(1), FD are available. 

AT meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Poland 

Article 7 (1), Criminal Liability of Bodies Corporate Act of 28 October 2002 provides for the 
imposition  on  a  body  corporate  of  a  fine  ranging  from  one  thousand  to  20  million  PLN 
(ZLOTY), provided that such a fine does not exceed 10% of its revenue in the financial year 
during which the offence was committed. 

Articles 8 and 9, Criminal Liability of Bodies Corporate Act of 28 October 2002 respectively, 
provide for various other penalties including confiscation orders and orders prohibiting them 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
from  carrying  out  certain  activities  and/or  receiving  state  aid  and/or  competing  for  public 
tenders etc. Prohibition orders are issued for a period of 1 to 5 years (Article 9 (2) refers). 

PL meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Portugal 

The Article 4 of Law No 20/2008 of 21 April (liability of legal persons) establishes liability 
and  refers  to  the  general  provisions  of  the  Criminal  Code.  Article  10  of  the  Criminal  Code 
states that: " When a legal type of crime includes a certain result, the fact comprises not only 
the action proper to produce it, as the omission of the action proper to avoid it, except if the 
intention of the law is different. The commission of a result by omission is only punishable 
when  the  omissive  person  is  under  a  legal  duty  that  personally  obliges  him  to  avoid  that 
result." 

In 2007 PT referred to the art. 7 of the Decree Law No 28/84 providing for sanctions such as 
warning,  a  fine  and  dissolution.  Article  8  sets  out  a  list  of  additional  sanctions,  such  as 
confiscation of property, guarantee of good conduct, injunction, temporary ban on carrying on 
certain activities or professions, temporary loss of the right to take part in public procurement 
procedures, loss of the right to subsidies or grants awarded by public entities or departments, 
loss of the right to take part in trade fairs or markets, loss of the right to be supplied via civil-
service  or  public-sector  entities,  temporary  or  permanent  closure  of  the  establishment  or 
publication of the conviction. 

Furthermore,  the  art  47  of  the  Criminal  Code  provides  more  specific  rules  on  how  a  fine 
penalty  is  fixed  (with  reference  to  days,  where  each  day  corresponds  to  a  fine  from  one  to 
498.80 Euro)  

PT meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Romania 

Article  6(1)  has  been  transposed  partially  by  Article  53(3)  of  the  Criminal  Code  which 
provides  for  the  complementary  sanctions  applicable  to  the  legal  entity.  Romanian  criminal 
law does not provide for the possibility to place the legal person under judicial supervision. 

There are the following types of sanctions applicable to a legal person: 

-a  principal  sanction  -  a  fine  of  RON  2,500  to  RON  2,000,000.(one  RON  equal  approx  0.2 
Euro) 

-  a  complementary  sanction,  such  as  the  winding  up  of  the  legal  person,  temporary 
disqualification from the practice of commercial activities for a period between 3 months to 
one year, the disqualification from the practices connected to the offence for a period between 
3 months to 3 years, temporary closure of some of the offices for a period between 3 months 
to  3  years,  temporary  ban  on  taking  part  in  public  procurement  procedures  for  a  period 
between one to three years or the publication of the conviction.  

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
 
 
RO informs the Commission that the placing of the legal entity under judicial supervision is 
provided  for  by  the  draft  new  Criminal  Code,  adopted  by  the  Government  on  25  February 
2009. 

RO meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Slovenia 

Pursuant to Article 12 of the law ZOPOKD-B, the following penalties may be issued against a 
legal entity: 

fine; 

- 
-  confiscation of property; 
-  winding-up order; 
-  prohibition from participating in public procurement tenders; 
-  prohibition from trading in financial instruments. 

The  minimum  fine  that  may  be  issued  is  10.000  Euro  and  the  maximum  fine  is  1.000.000 
Euro.  Where  the  criminal  offence  caused  pecuniary  loss  to  another  or  where  a  legal  person 
acquired  unlawful  pecuniary  benefit,  the  maximum  fine  that  can  be  issued  is  200  times  the 
amount of such loss or benefit. 

Half  or  more  of  the  property  or  the  entire  property  of  the  legal  entity  may  be  confiscated. 
Confiscation of property may be ordered for criminal offences for which a punishment of five 
years imprisonment or more is prescribed. 

Winding-up  of  a  legal  entity  may  be  ordered  when  the  activity  of  a  legal  entity  is  fully  or 
predominantly used for committing criminal offences. Aside from ordering winding-up of the 
legal entity, a court may also issue the penalty of confiscation of property. Upon issuing the 
penalty of winding-up a legal entity, the court motions the start of winding-up proceedings. 

The  two  new  secondary  penalties,  namely  the  prohibition  from  participating  in  public 
procurement tenders and the prohibition from trading in financial instruments allow, informs 
SI, for greater flexibility in punishing legal persons in light of the criminal offence committed. 

SI meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Slovakia 

See discussion on art 5 (1) 

There is insufficient information to assess whether SK meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Finland 

The relevant legislation is Sections 5, 6 and 8, Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code.  

A corporate fine is imposed as a lump sum. The corporate fine is at least 850 Euros and at 
most 850,000 Euros. 

In  2007  FI  was  requested  by  the  Commission  to  provide  clarification  on  the  limitation  on 
corporate liability (waiving of punishments and waiving of bringing of charges, section 4, 7 
chapter 9), but no clarification has been submitted.  

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
FI partly meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

Sweden 

Chapter 36 - Section 8, Criminal Code provides for a range of fine of between 5,000 Swedish 
crowns  and  10  million  Swedish  crowns,  the  amount  of  which,  according  to  section  9,  is 
determined  by  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  crime  and  its  relation  to  the  business  activity. 
Section  10  sets  out  a  number  of  criteria  for  remission  or  reduction  of  the  penalty,  one  of 
which  is  where  the  relevant  natural  person  has  received  a  penalty.  Section  4,  Trading 
Prohibition  Act  (1986:436)  provides  for  the  issue  of  an  injunction  against  trading  against 
natural persons of a specified status, where business activities have been conducted by a legal 
entity  and  provided  such  persons  committed  the  crime  in  respect  of  business  activities.  The 
injunction may be imposed for a period of 3 to 10 years. Details of its scope are provided at 
section 6, and include a prohibition on conducting business activities. 

SE meets the requirements of Article 6(1) 

United Kingdom 

UK authorities informed the Commission that relating to Article 6, the relevant legislation is 
the Interpretation Act 1978, legal persons are subject to the same penalties as natural persons. 
They would thus be liable to unlimited fines in cases taken on indictment. However UK does 
not submit the text of the mentioned legislation. 

In the previous report, a doubt was raised concerning Scotland, because neither a commentary 
nor the text of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, was supplied. The text was not 
supplied so it is impossible to clarify the doubt. It seems that the Bribery Act 2010 could be 
relevant in this regard, but further clarification is required. 

UK appears to meet the requirements of Article 6(1) 

1.5.6.  Article 6(2) Analysis of Member States 

Belgium 

See discussion on the art. 5(2) 

BE meets the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Bulgaria 

In view of the discussion of Article 5(2), where the Commission invites BG to provide further 
commentary on the extent to which its legislation (Article 83a, Criminal Code) addresses the 
requirement that the legal person would be liable in situations where there has been a lack of 
supervision or control, it is not possible to assess whether or not BU meets the requirements 
of Article 6(2). 

There is insufficient information to assess whether BG meets the requirements of Article 6(2), FD. 

Czech Republic 

See discussion on Art 5. 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
CZ does not meet the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Denmark 

Was considered compliant in 2007 report 

Germany 

In the event of supervisory breaches of duty for the purposes of Article 5(2) of the Framework 
Decision, German law likewise provides for a fine imposed on the legal person under §§ 30 
and 130 Law on Administrative offences.  

DE meets the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Estonia 

Estonian  authorities  inform  that,  given  that  no  explicit  rules  exist  concerning  the  lack  of 
supervision/ duty of care, the sanctions provided for these acts are comparable to the sanctions 
provided for other offences of similar gravity.  

When  discussing  the  Art.  5  (2),  the  Commission  considered  that  the  situation  remained 
unclear and invited Estonia to provide explicitly for liability of legal persons in cases of lack 
of supervision or control. 

EE does not meet the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Ireland 

Section 9 (1) of the Act of 2001 as amended by the Act of 2010, states that "where an offence 
(…) has been committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the 
consent (…) or to have been attributable to any neglect (…)" 

Section  1  of  the  1906  Act,  as  amended  by  section  2(4)  of  the  Act  of  2001,  sets  out  the 
penalties for an offence of corruption. It provides that the penalty for an offence of corruption 
on  summary  conviction  is  a  fine  not  exceeding  £2.362.69  or  imprisonment  for  a  term  not 
exceeding  12  months,  or  both.  The  penalty  for  a  conviction  on  indictment  is  a  fine  or 
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.  

IE meets the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Greece 

Article 10 of the law 3560/2007 at paragraph 2 provides that the same sanctions indicated in 
paragraph  1  (administrative  fine,  disqualification  from  practice  of  business  activities, 
expulsion from entitlement to public benefits) shall be imposed on the legal person where the 
lack of supervision  or control by a natural person has made possible  the commission of the 
criminal offences by a natural person under its authority. 

EL meets the requirements of Article 6(2) 

France 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
Art. 445-4 criminal Code provides for a fine of up to 375.000€, and complementary penalties 
for legal persons. 

FR meets the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Cyprus 

See discussion on Article 6 (1) 

CY does not meet the requirements of Article 6 (2) 

Latvia 

As  stated  earlier,  LV  did  not  appear  to  meet  the  requirements  of  Article  5(2),  since  it  was 
unclear from its legislation whether, under Section 70(8) of Chapter VIII, a court could hold a 
legal person liable where its lack of supervision or control has made possible the commission 
of the offence, as required by Article 5(2). In absence of further clarifications: 

LV does not appear to meet the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Luxembourg 

As discussed in relation to Article 5 (2), FD, legal persons are liable for the criminal acts of 
active  and  passive  corruption  without  any  limiting  requirement  as  to  the  absence  of 
supervision or control. For sanctions, see discussion on Article 6(1). 

LU meets the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Hungary 

HU did not provide any specific information relating to penalties or measure which applies in 
case of art. 5(2) of the FD. 

There is insufficient information to assess whether HU meets the requirements of Article 6(2), 
FD. 

Italy 

In its notification IT stated there was no provision to cover this article.  

IT does not meet the requirements of Article 6 (2) 

Malta 

As stated above, the relevant legislation is article 121D of the Criminal Code, which does not 
seem  to  encompass  measures  in  case  of  lack  of  supervision  or  control  by  a  person  with  a 
power of representation. 

MT does not appear to meet the requirements of Article 6(2). 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
 
 
The Netherlands 

NL  did  not  provide  any  new  provisions,  however,  it  was  found  to  be  fully  compliant  with 
Art.6  (2)  in  the  2007  report.  As  no  subsequent  changes  to  the  legislation  have  been 
communicated, the Commission assumes no further changes have taken place. 

NL meets the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Austria 

The fines indicated in the new Law on Liability of Associations § 4 apply according to § 3 
which  defines  the  liability.  At  § 3  (3)  In  the  case  of  criminal  offences  by  employees,  the 
association shall be liable if: 

The  commission  of  the  offence  was  made  possible  or  considerably  easier  because  decision-
makers  failed  to  exercise  the  reasonable  care  required  by  the  circumstances,  particularly  by 
failing to take essential technical, organizational or staff measures to prevent such acts. " 

At  §  5  there  is  the  indication  on  how  to  determine  corporate  fine,  according  to  aggravating 
(greater  damage  or  risk  for  which  the  association  is  liable,  greater  advantage  gained  by  the 
association,  the  greater  degree  to  which  unlawful  behavior  by  employees  was  tolerated  or 
encouraged)  and  mitigating  (  precautions  to  prevent  such  acts,  association  liable  only  for 
criminal  offences  by  employees,  contribution  towards  establishing  the  truth,  remediation, 
prevention for the future, act already conferred serious legal disadvantage on the association) 
circumstances. 

AT meets the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Poland 

As stated already in 2007 report, PL appears to be compliant with Article 5(2) and the same 
applies for the penalties and measures taken to pursue the conduct described in art. 5(2)  

PL meets the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Portugal 

As  stated  in  the  discussion  on  Article  6(1),  the  Article  4  of  Law  No  20/2008  of  21  April 
(liability  of  legal  persons)  establishes  liability  and  refers  to  the  general  provisions  of  the 
Criminal  Code.  Article  10  of  the  Criminal  Code  states  that:  "  When  a  legal  type  of  crime 
includes  a  certain  result,  the  fact  comprises  not  only  the  action  proper  to  produce  it,  as  the 
omission of the action proper to avoid it, except if the intention of the law is different. The 
commission of a result by omission is only punishable when the omissive person is under a 
legal duty that personally obliges him to avoid that result." 

In 2007 PT referred to the art. 7 of the Decree Law No 28/84 providing for sanctions such as 
warning,  a  fine  and  dissolution.  Article  8  sets  out  a  list  of  additional  sanctions,  such  as 
confiscation of property, guarantee of good conduct, injunction, temporary ban on carrying on 
certain activities or professions, temporary loss of the right to take part in public procurement 
procedures, loss of the right to subsidies or grants awarded by public entities or departments, 
loss of the right to take part in trade fairs or markets, loss of the right to be supplied via civil-

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
service  or  public-sector  entities,  temporary  or  permanent  closure  of  the  establishment  or 
publication of the conviction. 

Furthermore,  the  art  47  of  the  Criminal  Code  provides  more  specific  rules  on  how  a  fine 
penalty  is  fixed  (with  reference  to  days,  where  each  day  corresponds  to  a  fine  from  one  to 
498.80 Euro): 

"A fine penalty is fixed with reference to days, in accordance with the criterion established in 
number 1 under the article 71, and generally has a minimum limit of 10 days and a maximum 
of 360 days 

2- Each day corresponds to a fine from €1 to 
the economic and financial conditions of the convict and his personal duties. 

€498.80, which the tribunal  fixes in regard to 

3-  Whenever  it  is  justifiable  by  the  economic  and  financial  conditions  of  the  convict,  the 
tribunal may authorize the payment of fine within a term not exceeding 1 year, or allow the 
payment by means of instalments, the last of which not exceeding 2 years subsequent to the 
date of the definite sentence of conviction. 

4- Within the limits referred to in the previous number and when posterior motives justify it, 
the period of payment initially established may be altered" 

PT meets the requirements of article 6(2) 

Romania 

The penalties are provided by Article 53(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code which provide for 
the  principal  penalty  applicable.  However,  it  is  not  clear  if  the  relevant  article  19  fully 
encompasses the case of liability for lack of supervision or control. 

RO  appears  to  meet  the  requirements  of  Article  6(2),  but  as  for  the  art  5(2)  further 
clarification is required. 

Slovenia 

The offence is provided for at Articles 4(2) and (4), Criminal Liability of Legal Entities Act 
which does not however specify the level of penalty for these offences. It would appear that 
for that information, one must refer to the offence carried out by the perpetrator, and that the 
penalty which may be imposed on the legal person will vary accordingly.  

SI meets the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Slovakia 

See previous discussion on art 5(1) 

There is insufficient information to assess whether SK meets the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Finland 

Details about corporate fines, including their method of calculation, are provided at section 5- 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
9,  chapter  9,  Criminal  Code.  The  level  of  corporate  fine  ranges  from  €  850  to  €  850.000. 
However, due to the doubts as to the limitations referred to in discussion on art. 5 and 6(1): 

FI partly meets the requirements of Article 6(2) 

Sweden 

The penalty available with respect to an offence of active or passive corruption arising from 
lack  of  supervision  is  the  imposition  of  a  corporate  fine  (Chapter  36  -  section  7,  Criminal 
Code)  ranging  from  5,000  Swedish  crowns  to  10  million  Swedish  crowns  (Chapter  36  - 
section  8,  Criminal  Code),  which  may  be  remitted  or  reduced  in  certain  circumstances 
(Chapter  36  -  section  10,  Criminal  Code),  and  an  injunction  against  trading  (section  4, 
Trading Prohibition Act 1986:436). 

Chapter 36 - section 7, Criminal Code provides for a penalty of a fine where a crime has been 
committed by a legal person in the exercise of business activities. One of the two conditions 
to  be  met  is  a  requirement  that  the  legal  person  has  not  done  what  could  reasonably  be 
required  of  it  to  prevent  the  crime,  which  appears  broad  enough  to  meet  the  intention  of 
Article 5(2). 

SE appears to meet the requirements of Article 6(2) 

United Kingdom 

See  discussion  on  Article  5(2).  The  new  Bribery  Act  foresees  that  a  person  guilty  of  the 
offence  (failure  to  prevent  bribery)  is  liable  on  conviction  on  indictment  to  a  fine.  UK 
informed  the  Commission  that  relating  to  Article  6,  the  relevant  legislation  is  the 
Interpretation  Act  1978,  legal  persons  are  subject  to  the  same  penalties  as  natural  persons. 
They would thus be liable to unlimited fines in cases taken on indictment 

UK meets the requirements of Article 6(2) 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
PART 2: Article 7 – Jurisdiction 

General comments 

Only 9 MS (BE, CZ, DK, DE, IE, LU, HU, NL, UK) fully transposed Article 7. It seems that 
15  MS  (BG,  EE,  EL,  FR,  IT,  CY,  LV,  MT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  SK,  FI,  SE)  have  partly 
transposed  the  Article,  but  in  many  cases  there  was  not  enough  information  on  every 
provision to fully assess the compliance. 10 MS (DK, DE, EE, FR, LT, HU, AT, FI, SE, UK) 
decided  not to  apply  certain  jurisdiction rules (when offence has been committed by  one of 
the nationals or when it was committed for the benefit of a legal person that has its head office 
in  the  territory  of  a  given  MS).  In  general,  considering  the  lack  of  information  provided,  it 
was  not  possible  for  the  Commission  to  draw  a  clear  picture  of  the  implementation  of  this 
Article.  MS  are  required  to  submit  more  precise  information  in  order  to  allow  the 
Commission to carry out an in-depth evaluation.  

Article 7(1) Summary table of the transposing legislation 

Legislation 

Comments by the Commission 

7(1)(a) Art. 3, Criminal Code 

7(1)(b) Art. 7, 12, 12bis Law 17 April 
1878 

7(1)(c) Art.3, 5, Criminal Code; Art. 
23, 24, 62bis & 139, Criminal 
Procedure Code 

Art. 3, 4, 5, 6 Penal code 

Section 17, 18, 20, 21 Act No 
140/1961, Crime Act 

Section 4, 6, 8, 10 of Act No 40/2009, 
Criminal Code 

MS 

BE  

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

Section 3,7, 9 Criminal Code 

DK cited sections 9-9, Criminal Code for 
2007 report. 

It is noted that DE does not apply the 
jurisdiction rules in Article 791(9c) in cases 
where the criminal offence was committed 
for the benefit of a legal person which has its 
head of office in Germany territory. 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

Art. 6, 7 Criminal code 

Section 6 Act 2001 

Prevention of Corruption Act 2010  

Bill 2008 

Art. 9 Law 3560/2007 

No reply 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Legislation 

Comments by the Commission 

FR   Art. 113-2, 113-6, 113-7, 113-8, 121-2, 

Criminal code 

It is noted that FR applies art. 7(b)(1) just 
according to the following conditions: 

- the offences are punished in the country 
where have been committed, 

- the offence has been the subject of a 
complaint by the victim or his dependant, or 
there has been an official denunciation in 
front of the authority of the country where 
the offence was committed. 

Section 8 is not relevant as it deals with 
political offences. 

Law No 23 (III)/2000 in connection with the 
art. 17 of the CoE Convention.  

Art 5 of the Criminal Code (text not 
provided) 

LT cited Articles 4 and 5, Criminal Code for 
the 2007 report. 

Article 5, code of Criminal Procedure 

It is noted that in so far as Article 7(1)(b) is 
not in any case transposed by section 65 of 
the Criminal Code, use is made of the 
exception allowed under Article 7(2), and 
Article 7(1)(b) is confined to cases punishable 
in both jurisdictions. 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU  

HU 

MT  

NL 

AT 

Art. 6-9 Criminal Code 

Sections 2-4, Chapter I, General 
provisions 

Art. 26 - 29 Code of Criminal 
procedure 

Art. 3 Act IV 1978 

Art. 121C Criminal Code 

Art. 2, 5 Criminal Code 

Section 62 and 67 Code of Criminal 
Procedure 

PL  Articles 5, 109, 112 and 113 Criminal 

Code 

PT 

Articles 4, 5 Criminal Code 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

RO 

Legislation 

Comments by the Commission 

Art. 3, 4 Criminal Code 

It is noted that in regard to paragraph 1(c) of 
Article 7, the legal entity which has the 
registered central office in Romania is a 
Romanian legal entity which is subject to the 
application of the Romanian law, including 
the criminal law. 

SI 

KZ-1and ZOPOKD-B art.3, 
10,11,12,14 

SK 

Section 3,4, 7 Criminal Code 

FI 

Section 1, 6, chapter 1, Criminal code 

SE  

Chapter 2 Criminal Code 

It is noted that by virtue of Article 7(2) and 
in accordance with Article 7(4), FI does not 
apply Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) as the sole basis 
for the jurisdiction. 

It is noted the SE not apply the jurisdiction 
rule in Article 7(1)(c) 

UK  

1906 Act 

Bribery Act 2010 

Part 12 of Anti-terrorism, crime and 
Security Act 2001 

Article 7(1) Summary account of transposition 

7 MS (BE, CZ, DK, DE, HU, NL, UK) have fully transposed Article 7(1). 

As mentioned previously, the lack of information supplied by MS hindered assessment of the 
extent to which Article 7(1) has been transposed to the national legislation of MS and leads to 
the  conclusion,  in  want  of  more  specific  information,  that  transposition  of  the  Article  is 
incomplete in several MS.  

In the case of AT, while relevant legislation was cited, the text of the law was not provided, 
thus  rendering  the  assessment  of  whether  these  MS  meet  the  requirements  of  Article  7(1). 
Certain  recurrent  omissions  from  reports  were  noted  among  MS.  6  MS  did  not  provide 
legislation  that  would  ensure  liability  for  offences  committed  partly  in  their  territory  under 
Article 7(1)(a) (BG, EE, LV, RO, SI, FI). 9 MS (BG, EL, FR, IT, LV, MT, AT, PL, SK) were 
found  to  not  be  compliant  with  Article  7(1)(c)  due  to  a  failure  to  mention  the  liability  of  a 
legal person that has its head office in the territory of that MS. 

Article 7(1): Summary table of transposition 

MS 

BE  

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

Art. 3 Criminal 
Code 

Art. 7 and 12, art. 
12 bis of Law 17 
April 1878 

Art. 3 and 5, 
Criminal Code, art. 
23,24, 62bis, 69,139 

BE has transposed 
Article 7(1).  

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

Belgian law does 
not define the place 
where offences 
takes place, the 
theory of ubiquity 
is used (one of the 
elements 
committed in the 
territory). 

containing 
preliminary 
chapter of Criminal 
Code. 

These articles 
establish Belgian 
jurisdiction for 
crimes (as defined 
in EU law) 
committed by its 
nationals abroad. 

BG 

BE meets the 
requirements. 

Art.3(1) of the 
Penal Code states 
"The Penal Code 
shall apply to all 
crimes committed 
in the territory of 
the Republic of 
Bulgaria." It does 
not mention 
whether this also 
applies to crimes 
committed in part 
in its territory. 

BG partly meets the 
requirements 

BE meets the 
requirements. 

Art.4(1) of the 
Penal Code 
establishes 
jurisdiction over 
Bulgarian citizens 
for crimes they 
commit abroad. 
Art.4(2) specifies 
that Bulgarian 
citizens may only 
be deported when 
this is provided for 
by an international 
treaty which 
Bulgaria has 
ratified. 

BG meets the 
requirements 

Criminal 
Procedural Code.  

The relevant 
provisions of the 
Criminal 
Procedural Code 
establish Belgian 
jurisdiction over 
crimes committed 
for the benefit of a 
legal person that 
has its 
headquarters in 
Belgium. 

BE meets the 
requirements. 

The wording of 
Art. 3(1) does not 
appear sufficient to 
cover the 
requirement of 
crimes benefiting a 
legal person that 
has its head office 
in Bulgaria, as it 
specifies crimes 
committed within 
its territory. 

BG does not appear 
to meet the 
requirements 

BG has partly 
transposed Article 
7(1). 

CZ 

Section 4, Act 
40/2009 Criminal 
Code: 
"(1) The 
criminality of an 
act committed in 
the territory of the 
Czech Republic 

Section 6(3), 
Criminal Code: 
"The criminality of 
an act committed 
abroad by a citizen 
of the Czech 
Republic ... shall 
also be assessed in 

Section 8, Criminal 
Code:  
"(2) The 
criminality of an 
act committed by a 
foreign national ... 
shall also be 
assessed in 

CZ has transposed 
Article 7(1). 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

accordance with 
the law of the 
Czech Republic if 
the act is 
committed for the 
benefit of a legal 
person having its 
registered office or 
organisational unit 
in the Czech 
Republic, or a 
natural person who 
is an entrepreneur 
and has his 
undertaking, an 
organisational unit 
thereof, or place of 
business in the 
Czech Republic. 
(3) However, a 
punishment more 
stringent than that 
provided by the law 
of the State in 
whose territory an 
offence is 
committed may not 
be imposed on the 
offender." 

CZ meets the 
requirements. 

DK has opted not 
to apply this rule. 

accordance with 
the law of the 
Czech Republic." 

CZ meets the 
requirements. 

shall be assessed in 
accordance with 
the law of the 
Czech Republic. 
(2) An offence shall 
be regarded as 
committed in the 
territory of the 
Republic 
(a) if the offender 
commits the act 
here, even if the 
violation of or 
threat to an interest 
protected by the 
Crime Act occurs 
or is intended to 
occur in whole or in 
part abroad, or 
(b) if the offender 
violates or 
threatens an 
interest protected 
by the Crime Act 
here, or if the 
consequence is 
intended to occur 
at least in part 
here, even if the act 
is committed 
abroad." 

CZ meets the 
requirements. 

DK 

For the previous 
report, DK cited 
the following. 

Section 6(1), 
Criminal Code, 
provides for DK 
jurisdiction where 
an offence takes 
place fully or partly 
in DK. Attempts 
and participatory 
acts committed in 
DK also fall under 

For the previous 
report, DK notified 
the Commission 
that it has opted to 
make jurisdiction 
conditional to the 
offence being 
punishable in the 
country in which it 
was committed 
(dual criminality). 
DK also states that 
acts committed 
outside DK by a 

107 

EN 

DK was found, in 
the 2007 
assessment, to have 
transposed Article 
7(1). 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

DE 

person holding DK 
citizenship, resident 
in DK or a person 
holding the 
citizenship or right 
of residence in 
another Nordic 
country who is 
staying in DK, 
come under DK 
jurisdiction where 
the offence is 
punishable under 
legislation 
regarding the place 
of the crime. 

DK meets the 
requirements. 

Under German 
law, offences 
committed in other 
countries by 
German nationals 
are punishable, 
irrespective of 
whether or not the 
offences are subject 
to penalties at the 
time and in the 
place of their 
commission (§ 
7(2)(1) StGB). The 
constituent 
elements of the 
criminal offence 
under § 299 StGB 
are also expressly 
applicable to 
criminal offences 
relating to foreign 
competition (§ 
299(3) StGB). 

DK jurisdiction 
under this 
provision even if 
the relevant offence 
is carried out or 
intended to be 
carried out abroad. 
In addition, Section 
8, Criminal Code, 
provides that, 
under certain 
circumstances, acts 
committed abroad 
come under DK 
jurisdiction 
irrespective of 
where the offender 
resides. 

DK meets the 
requirements. 

This is addressed 
by Section 3 in 
conjunction with 
Section 9, Criminal 
Code. 
Section 3 states 
that: "German 
criminal law shall 
apply to offences 
committed within 
Germany," 
while Section 9 
specifies that an 
offence "is deemed 
to have been 
committed at the 
place where the 
perpetrator acted 
or, in the case of an 
omission, should 
have acted, or at 
the place where the 
result forming a 
constituent of the 
offence occurred or 
where the offender 
intended it to 

DE has transposed 
Article 7 (1). 

The jurisdiction 
rules in Article 
7(1)(c) are not 
applied in cases 
where the criminal 
offences was 
committed for the 
benefit of a legal 
person which has 
its head office in 
German territory. 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

occur." The 
reference to both 
acting and effects 
appears to cover 
the "in whole or in 
part" requirement 
of the FD.  

DE meets the 
requirements. 

DE meets the 
requirements. 

EE 

Art. 6 Penal Code 

Art. 7 penal code 

EE informs, "the 
penal law of 
Estonia applies to 
acts committed 
within the territory 
of Estonia."  
However, it 
remains unclear as 
to whether this also 
applies to crimes 
committed in part 
within the 
territory. 

EE partly meets the 
requirements 

EE informs, "the 
penal law of 
Estonia applies to 
an act committed 
outside the 
territory of Estonia 
if such act 
constitutes a 
criminal offence 
pursuant to the 
penal law of 
Estonia and is 
punishable at the 
place of 
commission of the 
act, or if no penal 
power is applicable 
at the place of 
commission of the 
act and if: 

2) the offender is a 
citizen of Estonia at 
the time of 
commission of the 
act or becomes a 
citizen of Estonia 
after the 
commission of the 
act, or if the 
offender is an alien 
who has been 
detained in Estonia 
and is not 
extradited. The 
penal law of 

EE has partly 
transposed Article 
7(1) 

EE states: "No 
explicit regulation 
exists except in 
foreign bribery 
cases. Legal 
persons registered 
in Estonia might be 
considered 
Estonian 
nationals." 

The decision to not 
apply Art.7(1)(c) of 
the FD, though not 
confirmed, is 
assumed by the 
Commission to still 
be valid. 

EE meets the 
requirements 

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

Estonia applies: 2) 
to giving bribe or 
granting of 
gratuities to a 
foreign official, or 
influence peddling 
by a foreign 
official, or any 
offence connected 
to these offences, if 
committed by a 
citizen of Estonia, 
or an alien who has 
been detained in 
Estonia and is not 
extradited, or a 
legal person 
registered in 
Estonia."  

EE meets 
requirements. 

Section 3 
Prevention of 
Corruption Act 
2010 

Section 3 
Prevention of 
Corruption Act 
2010 

IE has transposed 
Article 7(1) 

IE meets the 
requirements 

IE meets the 
requirements 

IE 

Section 6 Act 2001 

IE informs that this 
article "provides 
that a person may 
be tried in Ireland 
for a corruption 
offence if any 
element of the 
offence occurred in 
the State." 

IE meets the 
requirements 

Art. 9, Law 
3560/2007  

EL 

Art. 9 law 
3560/2007 

Provides for Ipso 
Jure prosecution as 
follows,  
"(1) Greek Courts 
shall have 
jurisdiction over 
the criminal 

Article 17.1 of the 
Criminal Law 
Convention to 
which this 
provision in Greek 
law makes 
reference also 

EL has partly 
transposed Article 
7(1).  

The provisions 
cited by EL do not 
make specific 
mention of 
jurisdiction over 
legal persons 
having their head 
office on Greek 
territory.  

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

establishes 
jurisdiction where 
"(b) the offender is 
one of its 
nationals." 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess whether EL 
meets the 
requirements. 

offences referred to 
in article 17, par.1, 
in combination 
with articles 2 to 14 
of the Convention 
ratified hereby." 
The relevant article 
in the Criminal 
Law Convention on 
Corruption 
establishes 
jurisdiction where 
"(a) the offence is 
committed in whole 
or in part in its 
territory." 

EL meets the 
requirements 

EL meets the 
requirements.  

ES 

- 

- 

- 

- 

FR   Art. 113-2 and 121-
2 Criminal Code 

French legislation 
stipulates, "La loi 
pénale française est 
applicable aux 
infractions 
commises sur le 
territoire de la 
République. 
L'infraction est 
réputée commise 
sure le territoire de 
la République dès 
lors qu'un de ses 
faits constitutifs a 
eu lieu sur ce 
territoire." 

FR meets the 
requirements 

EN 

Art.113-6, 113-7 
and 113-8, 
Criminal Code 

FR does not supply 
any information on 
this provision. 

FR has partly 
transposed Article 
7(1). 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess whether FR 
meets the 
requirements. 

It is noted that FR 
applies art. 7(b)(1) 
just according to 
the following 
conditions: 

- the offences are 
punished in the 
country where have 
been committed, 

- the offence has 
been the subject of 
a complaint by the 
victim or his 
dependant, or there 
has been an official 
denunciation in 
front of the 
authority of the 
country where the 
offence was 

111 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

IT 

Section 6, Criminal 
Code provides that 
an offence is 
considered to have 
been committed in 
IT territory if the 
act or omission 
constituting it 
occurred there in 
whole or in part or 
the effects of the act 
or omission were 
felt and recorded 
there. 

IT meets the 
requirements 

committed. 

The declaration is 
noted 

Section 9, Criminal 
Code provides for 
jurisdiction in 
relation to offences 
against ordinary 
law committed 
outside IT by an IT 
citizen, including 
offences where the 
penalty is a period 
of imprisonment of 
3 years or more. As 
the penalty under 
section 2635, Civil 
Code is for a period 
"not exceeding 3 
years" this penalty 
appears to just 
barely meet this 
criterion, and in 
this case the 
penalty can be 
imposed if the 
person is found in 
Italian territory. 
Where a lesser 
custodial penalty 
has been imposed, 
section 9, Criminal 
Code provides that 
the person be 
sentenced either on 
application by the 
Ministry of Justice 
or on a complaint 
from the victim of 
the offence. 

In view of these 
limitations,  

IT does not meet the 

112 

EN 

IT has partly 
transposed Article 
7 (1). 

Has supplied no 
provisions in this 
regard, nor has it 
informed the 
Commission that it 
has taken a 
decision not to 
apply Article 7 (1) 
(c), in accordance 
with 
Articles 7 (2) and 7 
(4). 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess whether IT 
meets the 
requirements 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

CY 

LV 

CY refers to the 
Law 23 (III)/2000 
referring to the art. 
17 of the CoE, and 
it seems that 
jurisdiction rules 
has been 
established. 
Further 
clarifications would 
be welcomed. 

requirements 

CY refers to the 
Law 23 (III)/2000 
referring to the art. 
17 of the CoE, and 
it seems that 
jurisdiction rules 
has been 
established. 
Further 
clarifications would 
be welcomed. 

CY seems to meet 
the requirements 

CY seems to meet 
the requirements 

Section 2, Criminal 
Code provides for 
the principle of 
territoriality but 
with no reference 
to offences 
occurring in part on 
LV territory. 

Section 4, Criminal 
Code provides for 
jurisdiction over 
LV citizens or 
noncitizens who 
hold a residence 
permit for LV. 

LV partly meets the 
requirements 

LV meets the 
requirements 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess whether CY 
meets the 
requirements 

CY seems to have 
partly transposed 
Article, 
clarifications 
needed 

LV does not 
provide 
information. 

LV has partly 
transposed Article 
7(1). 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess 
whether LV meets 
the requirements 

LT  There is insufficient 

information to 
assess whether LT 
meets the 
requirements 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess whether LT 
meets the 
requirements 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess whether LT 
meets the 
requirements 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess whether LT 
has transposed 
Article 7  

LU  

As noted in the 
2007 assessment 
(art 3 Code Penal) 

LU meets the 
requirements 

As noted in the 
2007 assessment, in 
accordance with 
the Art. 5 of the 
Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 

LU meets the 
requirements 

LU has transposed 
Article 7 

Art  26(1)  and  art 
29  of  the  Code  of 
Criminal 
Procedure 

Sont  compétents  le 
d'Etat 
procureur 
de 
du 
lieu 
celui 
l'infraction, 
de la 

résidence, 
au 
la 
moment 
poursuite,  de  l'une 

de 

EN 

113 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

personnes 

des 
physiques 
soupçonnées 
d'avoir  participé  à 
celui 
l'infraction, 
du 
lieu 
d'arrestation  d'une 
de  ces  personnes, 
même  lorsque  cette 
arrestation  a  été 
opérée  pour  une 
autre  cause,  celui 
du 
la 
siège  de 
personne morale".  

de 

"  Art.  29.  (1)  (L.  3 
mars  2010)  Sont 
compétents  le  juge 
d'instruction 
du 
lieu  de  l'infraction, 
celui de la 
au 
résidence, 
moment 
la 
poursuite,  de  l'une 
des 
personnes 
physiques 
soupçonnées 
d'avoir 
à 
participé 
celui 
l'infraction, 
lieu 
du 
d'arrestation  d'une 
de  ces  personnes, 
même lorsque cette 
arrestation  a  été 
opérée  pour  une 
autre  cause,  celui 
la 
siège  de 
du 
personne morale" 

LU meets the 
requirements 

Hungarian 
criminal law does 
not contain the 
jurisdiction rule 

HU has transposed 
Article 7(1). 

HU 

Art. 3.1 Act IV 
1978 states 

Art. 3.1 Act IV 
1978 states 

"Hungarian law 

"Hungarian law 

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

shall apply to all 
criminal acts 
committed within 
Hungary."  

shall apply ... to 
any act deemed to 
be a crime under 
Hungarian law 
which is committed 
abroad by a 
Hungarian citizen."

under Article 7(1) 
(c), therefore 
Hungary does not 
apply it in 
accordance with 
Article 7(2) 

HU meets the 
requirements 

HU meets the 
requirements 

HU declaration has 
been noted 

MT   Art. 121C Criminal 

Code states  

Art. 121C(b) 
Criminal Code 

No provisions 

"the Maltese courts 
shall have 
jurisdiction over 
the offences laid 
down in this sub-
title where: (a) only 
part of the action 
giving execution to 
the offence took 
place in Malta." 

MT meets the 
requirements 

NL  Dutch criminal law 

applies the 
principle of 
territoriality, laid 
down in Article 2 of 
the Criminal Code, 
as a general 
starting point for 
the exercise of 
jurisdiction. Under 
the 'ubiquity 
doctrine' Article 2 
of the Criminal 
Code also extends 
to conduct which 
has taken place 
partially in the 
Netherlands and 
partially abroad. 
The Netherlands 
then also has 

"the offender is a 
Maltese national" 

MT meets the 
requirements 

The active 
personality 
principle has been 
laid down in Article 
5 of the Criminal 
Code. This means 
that the Dutch 
criminal law 
applies to a Dutch 
person who has 
carried out abroad 
an act which is 
criminal under 
Dutch law. An 
example of the 
application of this 
in a case of 
corruption in the 
private sector is 
provided by 
Gerechtshof 

115 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess whether MT 
meets the 
requirements 

The culpability of a 
legal person – 
Article 51 of the 
Criminal Code – is 
accepted in Dutch 
law on the basis of 
the circumstance 
that the criminal 
offence provides an 
advantage for the 
legal person (cf. 
Hoge Raad, 
27 January 1948, 
NJ 1948, 197). The 
active personality 
principle also 
applies to the 
conduct of Dutch 
legal persons 
abroad. 

EN 

MT has partly 
transposed Article 
7(1).  

NL has transposed 
Article 7(1). 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

jurisdiction over 
actions abroad (see 
Hoge Raad 6 April 
1954, NJ 1954, 368 
and Hoge Raad 
30 September 1997, 
NJ 1998, 117). 

NL meets the 
requirements 

AT 

Art. 62 – 67 
Criminal law (text 
not provided) 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess whether AT 
meets the 
requirements 

PL  Article 5, Criminal 
Code provides for 
jurisdiction in 
respect of persons 
who commit 
offences in PL. It is 
not clear whether 
this provision also 
covers offences 
committed partly in 
PL. 

Amsterdam, 
4 April 2003, NJ 
2003, 291, in which 
a Dutch person had 
bribed an employee 
of a British 
company. The 
active personality 
principle also 
applies to the 
conduct of Dutch 
legal persons 
abroad (Hoge 
Raad, 18 October 
1988, NJ 1989, 
496). 

NL meets the 
requirements 

Article 65, Code of 
Criminal 
Procedure and 
otherwise the 
exception Clause of 
Article 7(2) is used. 

AT meets the 
requirements  

Article 109, 
Criminal Code 
provides for 
jurisdiction in 
respect of PL 
citizens who 
commit offences 
abroad. Article 112 
(14) (5), Criminal 
Code provides that, 
without a 
requirement of 
dual criminality, 
PL criminal law 
shall apply to PL 

NL meets the 
requirements 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess whether AT 
has transposed 
Article 7(1). 

PL has partly 
transposed 
Article 7(1). 

No provision 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess whether AT 
meets the 
requirements  

No provision 

There is insufficient 

information to 
assess whether PL 
meets the 
requirements 

EN 

116 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

PL partly meets the 
requirements 

citizens and 
foreigners who 
commit an offence 
from which they 
have received, even 
indirectly, material 
benefits in PL, 
while Article 113, 
Criminal Code 
provides that, 
without a 
requirement of 
dual criminality, 
PL Criminal law 
shall apply to PL 
citizens and 
foreigners whom it 
has decided not to 
extradite and who 
have committed, 
outside PL, an 
offence which PL is 
bound to pursue by 
virtue of 
international 
agreements. 

PL meets the 
requirements 

PT 

As per the 2007 
assessment,  

As per the 2007 
assessment, 

PT partly meets the 
requirements 

PT meets the 
requirements 

RO 

Art. 3 Criminal 
Code applies to 
offences committed 
on the territory of 
Romania, but is 
unclear if it applies 

Art. 4 Criminal 
Code stipulates 

"The criminal law 
shall apply to 
offences committed 

PT does not 
provide any 
information in 
relation to Article 7 
(1)(c). 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess whether PT 
meets the 
requirements 

It is noteworthy 
that the legal entity 
which has the 
registered central 
office in Romania is 
a Romanian legal 

PT has partly 
transposed Article 
7 (1). 

RO has partly 
transposed Article 
7 (1). 

EN 

117 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

also to offences 
committed partly 
on the territory of 
Romania. 

outside the 
territory of the 
country if the 
perpetrator is a 
Romanian citizen." 

RO partly meets the 
requirements 

RO meets the 
requirements 

SI 

Article 10, 
Criminal 

Articles 12, 11, 14, 
Criminal Code 

Code provides for 

jurisdiction in 
respect of 

offences committed 
in the territory of 
SI, on domestic 
vessels and flights 
etc regardless of 
location. However, 
this does not 
appear to extend to 
offences 

committed partly 
on its territory. 

SI informs that, 
according to 
Art.12, its criminal 
law applies to 
Slovenian nationals 
who commit crimes 
abroad with two 
qualifications. 
First, Article 14(3) 
poses a 
requirement of 
double criminality. 
Second, Article 
14(2) forbids 
double jeopardy. 

entity which is 
subject to the 
application of the 
Romanian law, 
including the 
criminal law. 

RO meets the 
requirements  

Art. 3 Criminal 
Liability of Legal 
Entities Act. 

SI has partly 
transposed Article 
7 (1). 

SI informs that 
national and 
foreign legal 
persons are liable 
for criminal 
offences committed 
both in the 
territory of SI and 
abroad, if the legal 
person has its seat 
in Slovenia. 

SI partly meets the 
requirements 

SI meets the 
requirements 

SI partly meets the 

requirements 

SK 

Section 3 Criminal 
Code states "(2) A 
criminal offence 
shall also be 
deemed to have 
been committed on 
the territory of the 
Slovak Republic 

Section 4 Criminal 
Code states, "The 
punishability of an 
offence committed 
outside the 
territory of the 
Slovak Republic by 
a Slovak national 

No provision 
communicated. 

SK has partly 
transposed Article 
7 (1). 

EN 

118 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

when the 
perpetrator: (a) 
committed at least 
part of the offence 
on the territory of 
the Slovak 
Republic, if the 
interest protected 
by this Act would 
have been violated 
or endangered, 
whether fully or in 
part, abroad." 

SK meets the 
requirements 

Criminal 
Code, 
chapter 1, section 1 
establishes 
of 
jurisdiction 
crimes  committed 
Finnish 
within 
is, 
It 
territory. 
unclear 
however, 
whether 
this 
extends  to  crimes 
committed  in  part 
within 
Finnish 
territory. 

FI 

FI  partly  meets  the 
requirements 

or a foreign 
national 
permanently 
residing in the 
territory of the 
Slovak Republic 
shall also be judged 
under this Act." 

SK meets the 
requirements 

and 

Criminal 
code, 
chapter 1, section 6. 
by  virtue  of  Article 
in 
7(2), 
with 
accordance 
Article 
7(4), 
Finland informs the 
Commission 
that, 
in 
situations 
covered  by  Article 
it  may 
7(1)(b), 
require  an  order 
prosecution 
for 
the 
from 
Prosecutor-General 
or 
double 
criminality,  unless 
the  action  in  the 
latter case seriously 
harms 
or 
endangers  Finnish 
political,  military 
or  economic  rights 
or interests. 

FI's  declaration  is 
noted 

There is insufficient 
information to 
assess whether SK 
meets the 
requirements 

By  virtue  of  article 
in 
7(2) 
and 
with 
accordance 
article 7(4), Finland 
informs 
the 
Commission  that  it 
apply 
not 
does 
Article  791)(c)  as 
the  sole  basis  for 
jurisdiction. 

FI's  declaration  is 
noted 

has 

FI 
partly 
transposed  Article 
7(1). 

SE   Chapter 2 Criminal  Chapter 2 Criminal 

SE informed the 

SE has partly 

EN 

119 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

Code 

Code 

As noted in the 
2007 assessment, 

As noted in the 
2007 assessment, 

SE meets the 
requirements 

SE meets the 
requirements 

transposed Article 
7(1). 

Commission that it 
would not apply the 
jurisdiction rule in 
Article 7 (1) (c). It 
is therefore not 
clear how SE 
addresses those 
provisions of 
section 4, the 
Trading 
Prohibition Act 
(1986:436) which 
state that 
injunctions against 
trading can be 
imposed against the 
chief executive 
officer of such 
entities as 
European 
Economic Interest 
Groupings which 
have their 
registered office in 
SE and against 
members and 
alternate members 
of the managerial, 
administrative or 
supervisory organ, 
the managing 
director and the 
deputy managing 
director of 
European 
companies which 
have their 
registered office in 
SE. 

Sweden is invited to 
clarify its position 
in 
respect of Article 7 
1(c), FD. 

There is insufficient 

EN 

120 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article 7(1)(a) 

Article 7(1)(b) 

Article 7(1)(c) 

Comments 

UK has transposed 
Article 7(1). 

information to 
assess whether SE 
meets the 
requirements  

The UK exercises 
its right, under 
Article 7.2, not to 
apply this rule in 
full. Section 109 of 
the 2001 Act 
extends our 
jurisdiction to 
cover offences 
committed outside 
the UK by bodies 
incorporated under 
UK law, so that 
most of the Article 
7.1 (c) cases will be 
covered. However 
the concept of 
jurisdiction based 
on the issue of who 
benefits from a 
crime is alien to our 
system: and a 
jurisdiction based 
on the location of a 
head office would 
in some cases give a 
different result to 
our system of 
jurisdiction based 
on incorporation 
under UK law. 

UK declaration is 
noted 

Part 12 anti-
terrorism Act,  

Section 109 Crime 
and Security Act 
2001 

UK   Section 12(1) of the 
2010 Bribery Act 
states 

"An offence is 
committed under 
section 1, 2 or 6 in 
England and 
Wales, Scotland or 
Northern Ireland if 
any act or omission 
which forms part of 
the offence takes 
place in that part of 
the United 
Kingdom." 

UK meets the 
requirements 

UK meets the 
requirements 

1.5.7.  Article 7(2) Table of Declarations  

MS 

Article to 
which 
Declaration 
relates 

Terms of Declaration 

EN 

121 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article to 
which 
Declaration 
relates 

BE   No declaration 

BG  No declaration 

CZ  No declaration 

DK  Art. 7(1)(c) 

DE  Art. 7(1)(c) 

EE  Art. 7(1)(c) 

IE 

No declaration 

EL  No declaration 

ES 

No reply 

FR   Art. 7(1)(b) 

IT 

No declaration 

CY  No declaration 

LV  No declaration 

LT 

7(1)(C) 

LU   No declaration 

HU  Art. 7(1)(c) 

MT   No declaration 

Terms of Declaration 

Had,  in  the  2007  report,  decided  not  to  apply  the  jurisdiction 
rules. 

The  jurisdiction  rules  in  Article  7(1)(c)  are  not  applied  in  cases 
where  the  criminal  offences  was  committed  for  the  benefit  of  a 
legal person which has its head office in German territory. 

No explicit regulation exists except in foreign bribery cases. Legal 
persons  registered  in  Estonia  might  be  considered  Estonian 
nationals. 

"Conformément aux dispositions des paragraphes 2 et 4 de l'article 
7, la République française déclare qu'elle n'établira sa compétence, 
dans le cas visé au paragraphe 1 point b) de l'article 7, que dans les 
cas ou conditions suivants: 

- lorsque les faits sont punis par la législation du pays où ils ont été 
commis 

et 

-  lorsqu'ils  ont  fait  l'objet  d'une  plainte  de  la  victime  ou  de  ses 
ayants droit, ou d'une dénonciation officielle par l'autorité du pays 
où ils ont été commis." 

LT had, for the 2007 report, decided not to apply the jurisdiction 
rules. 

Hungarian  criminal  law  does  not  contain  the  jurisdiction  rule 
under  Article  7(1)  (c),  therefore  Hungary  does  not  apply  it  in 
accordance with Article 7(2). 

EN 

122 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article to 
which 
Declaration 
relates 

NL  No declaration 

AT  Art. 7(1)(b) 

PL 

PT 

No declaration 

No declaration 

RO  No declaration 

SI 

No declaration 

SK  No declaration 

FI 

Art. 7(1)(b) 

Art. 7(1)(c) 

SE   Art. 7(1)(c) 

UK   Art. 7(1)(c) 

Terms of Declaration 

To the extent that Article 7 (1)(b) is not already implemented by 
Section  65  of  the  Criminal  Code,  AT  has  decided,  in  accordance 
with article 7(2) of the Framework decision, to make jurisdiction 
in  the  cases  defined  in  Article  7(1)(b)  (own  nationals)  dependent 
upon whether the offence is also punishable under the law of the 
country in which it has been committed (double criminality). 

Criminal code, chapter 1, section 6. by virtue of Article 7(2), and 
in accordance with Article 7(4), Finland informs the Commission 
that,  in  situation  covered  by  Article  7(1)(b),  it  may  require  an 
order  for  prosecution  from  the  Prosecutor-General  or  double 
criminality, unless the action in the latter case seriously harms or 
endangers  Finnish  political,  military  or  economic  rights  or 
interests. 

By  virtue  of  article  7(2)  and  in  accordance  with  article  7(4), 
Finland  informs  the  Commission  that  it  does  not  apply  Article 
7(1)(c) as the sole basis for jurisdiction 

Has  decided  not  to  apply  the  jurisdiction  rules.  However,  the 
Commission wonders how SE intends to address those provisions 
of  section  4,  the  Trading  Prohibition  Act  (1986:436)  which  state 
that injunctions against trading can be imposed against the chief 
executive  officer  of  such  entities  as  European  Economic  Interest 
Groupings  which  have  their  registered  office  in  Sweden  and 
against  members  and  alternate  members  of  the  managerial, 
administrative  or  supervisory  organ,  the  managing  director  and 
the deputy managing director of European companies which have 
their registered office in Sweden. 

As regards Article 7.1 (c) the UK exercises its right, under Article 
7.2,  not  to  apply  this  rule  in  full.  Section  109  of  the  2001  Act 
extends  our  jurisdiction  to  cover  offences  committed  outside  the 
UK  by  bodies  incorporated  under  UK  law,  so  that  most  of  the 
Article  7.1  (c)  cases  will  be  covered.  However  the  concept  of 
jurisdiction  based  on  the  issue  of  who  benefits  from  a  crime  is 
alien to our system: and a jurisdiction based on the location of a 

EN 

123 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Article to 
which 
Declaration 
relates 

Terms of Declaration 

head  office  would  in  some  cases  give  a  different  result  to  our 
system of jurisdiction based on incorporation under UK law. 

1.5.8.  Article 7(3) Table of Member States' comments 

MS  Comments 

BE   No comment on extradition; BE has transposed all elements of Art.7 (1) 

BG  Art.4(1)  of  the  Bulgarian  Penal  Code  states:  "The  Penal  Code  shall  also  apply  to 
Bulgarian  citizens  for  the  crimes  committed  by  them  abroad."  According  to  art. 
4(2)(2)  (Amended  -  SG  75  /  2006)  "Citizens  of  the  Republic  of  Bulgaria  may  not  be  deported  to 
another  state  or  to  an  international  tribunal  for  prosecution,  unless  this  is  provided  for  in  an 
international treaty which has been ratified, promulgated and entered into force for Bulgaria." 

CZ 

Section 21 of Act 140/1961 and Section 10 of Act 40/2009 provide that a citizen of 
Czech  Republic  cannot  be  extradited  to  a  foreign  State  unless  otherwise  provided 
by  the  law  or  a  promulgated  international  treaty.  The  Czech  authorities  inform 
however that they have enshrined the European arrest warrant in their legal system 
and  according  to  section  6  of  Act  40/2009  a  crime  committed  abroad  by  a  Czech 
citizen shall be assessed in accordance with the law of Czech Republic.  

DK  DK stated, for the 2007 report, that it extradites its own nationals under Danish law 
where certain conditions are met (Act No. 378 of 6 June 2002 refers). Denmark has 
also updated its legislation to make provision for the European Arrest Warrant and 
the surrender procedures between MS (Act No. 433 of 10 June 2003 refers). 

DE  DE makes recourse Art.7(2) of the FD to stipulate that it does not apply Art.7(1)(c) 
of  the  FD.  No  comments  on  surrendering  German  nationals  under  domestic  law 
were offered. 

EE 

EE makes recourse Art.7(2) of the FD to stipulate that it does not apply Art.7(1)(c) 
of  the  FD.  No  comments  on  surrendering  Estonian  nationals  under  domestic  law 
were offered. 

IE 

No comment on extradition; art 7.1 transposed 

EL  No comment on extradition; unclear whether Art.7(1)(c) is fully transposed. 

ES 

- 

FR   No  comment  on  extradition;  declaration  limiting  Art.7(1)(b);  unclear  whether 

Art.7(1)(c) is fully transposed. 

IT 

IT refers the Commission to its ratification of the European Extradition Convention 
of 13 December 1957. 

CY  No comments provided 

LV  No comment on extradition; unclear whether Art.7(1)(c) is fully transposed. 

EN 

124 

   EN 

 
 
LT 

LT  stated,  for  the  2007  report,  that  it  implements  Article  7(3),  FD,  by  means  of 
national  legal  acts  relating  to  the  surrender  of  persons,  including  nationals  of  the 
Republic of Lithuania, in accordance with a European Arrest Warrant. 

LU   No comment on extradition; unclear whether Art.7(1)(c) is fully transposed. 

HU  Art.  3  act  IV  1978  act  deemed  to  be  a  crime  under  Hungarian  law  which  is 

committed abroad by Hungarian citizen are punished following Hungarian laws. 

MT   No comment on extradition; unclear whether Art.7(1)(c) is fully transposed. 

NL  No comment on extradition; NL has transposed all elements of Art.7(1). 

AT  No comment on extradition; unclear whether Art.7(1)(c) is fully transposed. 

PL 

PT 

No comment on extradition; unclear whether Art.7(1)(c) is fully transposed. 

Portugal  informs  the  Commission  that  jurisdiction  outside  its  territory  is  also 
governed  by  the  rules  of  the  European  Arrest  Warrant  in  the  context  of  the 
European  Union  and  Article  32(5)  of  Law  No.  144/91  as  regards  international 
jurisdiction  outside  the  EU,  pursuant  to  which,  where  extradition  is  refused, 
criminal  proceedings  are  instituted  in  respect  of  the  acts  on  which  the  request  is 
based, with the requesting State asked to provide the necessary facts. 

RO  RO  refers  to  Article  4  of  the  Criminal  Code,  "The  criminal  law  shall  apply  to 
offences  committed  outside  the  territory  of  the  country  if  the  perpetrator  is  a 
Romanian citizen or if, having no citizenship, he has the domicile in the country." 

SI 

SI notes: "the Republic of Slovenia has jurisdiction to prosecute cases falling under 
Points  b  and  c  of  Paragraph  1  [Art.7  of  the  FD].  Considering  that  the  criminal 
offence of corruption is included in Article 2(2) of the Council Framework Decision 
(2002/584/JHA) of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender 
procedures, Paragraphs 3 and 4 are not applicable."  

SK 

"Section 7 

Applicability under international treaties  

(1) 
The punishability of an act shall also be judged in accordance with this Act 
where  so  stipulated  by  an  international  treaty  binding  on  the  Slovak  Republic 
which has been ratified and promulgated as required under Slovak legislation.  

(2) 
The  provisions  of  Sections  3  to  6  shall  not  apply  where  such  application  is 
not permitted under an international treaty binding on the Slovak Republic which 
has been ratified and promulgated as required under Slovak legislation. 

FI 

No  comment  on  extradition;  declaration  limiting  scope  of  application  of  Articles 
7(1) (b) and (c). 

SE   No comment on extradition; declaration limiting the scope of art. 7(1) (c) 

UK   UK stands ready to extradite its own nationals to face charges abroad 

EN 

125 

   EN