CELEX ID: 52023JC0012

--- ENGLISH ---

Document:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 3.5.2023
JOIN(2023) 12 final
JOINT COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
on the fight against corruption
1.
INTRODUCTION
Corruption is highly damaging to society, to our democracies, to the economy and to individuals. It undermines the institutions on which we depend, diluting their credibility as well as their ability to deliver public policies and quality public services. It acts as an enabler for organised crime and hostile foreign interference. Successfully preventing and fighting corruption is essential both to safeguard EU values and the effectiveness of EU policies, and to maintain the rule of law and trust in those who govern and public institutions.
Corruption is an impediment to sustainable
 
economic growth,
 
diverting
 
resources
 
from
 
productive outcomes
,
 
undermining
 
the efficiency of public spending
 and deepening social inequalities
.
 
It hampers the effective and smooth functioning of the 
s
ingle 
m
arket, creates uncertainties in doing business and holds back investment.
 
Corruption is by its nature difficult to quantify, but even conservative estimates suggest that
 
it costs
 
the EU economy at least EUR
 
120 billion per year
1
.
 
The negative effects of corruption are felt worldwide, under
cutting efforts
 to bring good governance and prosperity
,
 and t
o meet
 the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
Effective anti-corruption policies are an essential part of the enabling environment required for the rule of law, alongside on respect for judicial independence, free and pluralistic media, a transparent and high-quality public administration, and a free and active civil society. A constant commitment to 
prevention
, maintaining a culture of 
integrity
 and the active 
enforcement
 of anti-corruption legislation, including effective prosecution of corruption crimes, is needed to keep corruption in check. This approach is also reflected in EU external action on anti-corruption underpinned by support to the rule of law and public financial management of partner countries.
Global corruption indices put many EU Member States among the countries seen as the least corrupt in the world
2
. 
However,
 
as 
also 
set out 
in the Rule of Law reports, there are many 
issues to address 
and
 corruption remains a concern for 
people
 across the EU
, as 
shown 
by
 
Eurobarometer data
. 
In 2022, almost
 seven in ten Europeans (
68
%) believe
d
 that corruption 
wa
s widespread in their country 
and
 only 31% 
were
 of the opinion that their government’s efforts to combat corruption are effective. In addition, 
over half of the
 companies
 based in the EU
 (51%) think that it is unlikely that corrupt people or businesses in their country would be caught, or reported to the police or prosecutors
3
.
In the 2022 State of the Union address, President von der Leyen set out the need for decisive action against corruption. The EU can play a major role: not only in the way it manages its own work, but also through ongoing efforts to integrate measures to prevent corruption into the design of EU policies and programmes, and by actively supporting Member States’ work to put strong anti-corruption policies and legislation in place.
Today the Commission 
has 
adopted two
 targeted proposals to strengthen EU
 law in this area
. First, the Commission is proposing a directive to update and harmonise EU rules on 
the 
definitions
 of
 and 
penalties
 
for
 corruption offences
,
 
to ensure high standards against the full range of corruption offences, to better prevent corruption and to improve enforcement
4
. Second, the 
High Representative 
of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
, with the Commission’s support,
 
is
 
proposing to 
complement
 
the 
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP
 sanctions
) toolbox of 
restrictive measures (
sanctions
)
 
with a dedicated
 CFSP
 sanctions regime 
to 
fight 
corruption
 
when and where acts of corruption seriously affect or risk affecting the fundamental interests of the Union and the objectives of the 
CFSP
 as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union
5
.
 
The High Representative is therefore submitting a proposal for a Council Decision and, jointly with the Commission, a proposal for a Council Regulation for a thematic framework for CFSP sanctions targeting corruption, to complement our internal and external policy actions to fight corruption.
The Commission will step up its action and the anti-corruption proposals presented today represent a milestone in the fight against corruption at national and EU level. This Communication shows how these building blocks will accompany a broader effort to build a comprehensive and systematic strategic approach. This needs to bring together existing work and develop new directions and new tools at both EU and Member State level, also feeding into a clear commitment to tackling corruption at the global level. Success will depend on a joint and continuous effort at EU, national, regional, and local level, involving public authorities, civil society, and the private sector, as well as international organisations. This will not only make the public aware of the consequences of corruption, but it will also give citizens and businesses the confidence to challenge it.
2.
WHAT IS CORRUPTION?
Corruption is commonly referred to as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain
6
. 
While the nature and scope of corruption may differ from one country to another, no country can call itself corruption-free. 
As a global problem with major cross-border implications, it is the subject of a 
dedicated 
United Nations Convention, the 
United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)
. The Convention is the only legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument and offers definitions of different manifestations of corruption, embracing crimes from petty bribery to major political scandals. The EU, and all Member States, are 
part
ies
 
to the Convention. Combating corruption has also been a major theme 
for
 the Council of Europe
7
, with 
instruments
 
including 
the
 
Council of Europe Criminal 
and Civil 
Law Convention
s
 on Corruption.
 
In addition, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
 work
s
 on measures to prevent corruption, and
 
has 
establishe
d
 legally binding 
provision
s 
to criminalise 
the 
bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions
8
.
A political and institutional system based on integrity, transparency and accountability in public life is the best guarantee against corruption. Public services are also more resilient to corruption when there is a strong public service culture and fair remuneration. All public authorities need to guard against the risk of corruption. While corruption is first and foremost a crime, and specific acts of corruption are defined in national and international law, failings in integrity, conflicts of interest or serious breaches of ethical rules can also signal corruption risks. This is why effective anti-corruption approaches often build on measures to enhance transparency, ethics and integrity, as well as regulating areas such as conflict of interest, lobbying and revolving doors. Public bodies should seek the highest standards of integrity, transparency and independence as an important part of tackling corruption more broadly.
C
orruption 
is 
integral 
to 
almost every organised crime activity
, with 60
 
% 
of 
organised crime using corruption 
to
 infiltrate the public or private sectors
9
. The EU Security Union Strategy
10
and the 
2021-2025
 
EU Strategy on 
o
rganised 
c
rime
11
recognised 
this connection and 
pointed to the particular risk of corruption in specific sectors, including healthcare, transportation, construction, waste management, aerospace and defence, agriculture, 
food, 
labour, and social protection.
 
A r
ecent 
report
 
show
s
 that corruption is the main enabler to infiltrate ports and logistics chains, with criminal networks seeking to form corruption networks in multiple locations
 to 
facilitate crimes such as 
drugs trafficking
12
.
In s
ome of these sectors
,
 corruption in the private sector is also an important risk and has been the focus of action
, as corrupt private-to-private transactions
 affect the entire supply chain, 
distort markets
, undermine competition, and increase costs to 
companies
.
 
This is part of 
a
 
substantial
 body of regulation, legal compliance and due diligence programmes, as well as softer tools
,
 that aim at fostering a general culture of ethics and integrity in business
,
 which
 
contribute to
 the broader anti-corruption framework at 
EU
 
as well as 
global
 
level
13
.
3.
THE EU ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK
The work of the EU in helping to prevent, detect and combat corruption at all levels can build on a strong basis of measures already in place. This should also serve as the basis for a process of developing a more comprehensive strategic approach, including new workstreams and new approaches to match the scale of the challenge and to keep up with evolving corruption risks. As recognised in the Rule of Law reports, a strategic anti-corruption framework offers an important opportunity to translate political commitment and vision into concrete actions. Anti-corruption strategies can ensure that individual legislative or institutional loopholes are not addressed in isolation, and that anti-corruption provisions are mainstreamed in all relevant policy sectors. This calls for an 
EU anti-corruption strategy
. To be effective, this needs to be developed on a strong foundation of consensus and broad consultation, in particular with the European Parliament and Member States. It also needs to be accompanied by specific and measurable objectives, clear-cut budget and staffing and well-defined responsibilities.
Preparing such reforms can greatly benefit by expertise and experience-sharing at EU level. A first step in the process will be to set up an 
EU network against corruption
. Since 2015, an EU anti-corruption experience-sharing programme has offered anti-corruption practitioners from Member States a forum where they can seek inspiration and learn from legislative, institutional and policy reforms in other Member States. This work will be extended and deepened through a network to act as a catalyst for corruption prevention efforts across the EU. It will be tasked to develop best practices and practical guidance in various areas of common interest. It will also support a more systematic gathering of data and evidence that can serve as a solid basis for anti-corruption actions and for monitoring the success of these actions. The network will build on experience of working not only with law enforcement and public authorities, and bring together all relevant stakeholders, including practitioners, experts and researchers, as well as representatives of civil society and international organisations.
3.1
Addressing corruption as a crime
While the EU has criminal legislation in place to fight corruption, it is fragmented, outdated and limited in scope. The 
main 
EU criminal anti-corruption 
legislation 
is
 the 1997 Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials
14
a
nd
 the 2003 Council Framework Decision on combating corruption in the private sector
15
, 
both of which 
pre-date
 the Treaty of Lisbon. They have been complemented by more recent instruments, such as the Directive on the protection of the EU’s financial interests by means of criminal law
16
(‘PIF Directive’), and the 
proposed 
Directive
 
on 
asset recovery
 
and confiscation
17
.
The proposal 
for a 
D
irective 
adopted in parallel to this Communication 
establishes rules on definitions and 
penalties
 
for corruption offences
18
. 
It extends t
he 
list of
 
corruption 
offences 
to cover misappropriation, trading in influence, abuse of functions, 
as well as 
obstruction of justice and 
the 
illicit enrichment
 related to corruption offences
, beyond the more classic bribery offences
. 
It
 also sets out
 consistent 
penalty
 
levels
, 
as well as 
aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances could be applicable
,
 for example
,
 when the offender 
holds
 
a high level public office
 or is responsible for law enforcement. Mitigating circumstances could include situations where the offender identifies other offenders or assists in bringing them to justice. For the first time at EU level, the proposal brings together public and private sector corruption in one 
legal act
. It also sets out clear monitoring and reporting requirements to help enforcement.
Action on corruption begins with 
prevention, 
and creating a 
culture
 
of integrity,
 in which corruption is not tolerated. The
 
proposed Directive requires Member States to take action such as information and awareness-raising campaigns as well as research and education programmes, and to encourage civil society and community-based organisations to participate in anti-corruption efforts. It also requires them to ensure that key preventive tools such as an open access to information of public interest, effective rules for the disclosure and management of conflicts of interests in the public sector, effective rules for the disclosure and verification of assets of public officials and effective rules regulating the interaction between the private and the public sector are in place. It provides a coherent set of rules to better tackle corruption in the EU and to improve coordination of actions at national and EU level.
The proposal will also strengthen 
enforcement
.
 
The Rule of Law reports have shown that efficient criminal justice systems with the right tools to fight corruption are key to upholding high standards. The Directive will facilitate an effective fight against corruption across the EU, providing minimum rules to tackle the complex web of interrelated activities that feed on corruption in today’s societies. It will address key factors in effective anti-corruption work, including capacity, specialisation and access to the relevant investigative tools, as well as obstacles to effective investigation and prosecution such as burdensome and opaque procedures for lifting immunities or excessively short limitation periods covering corruption offences.
3.2
Mainstreaming anti-corruption in
to
 
EU 
policy design
The fight against corruption has a central place in the EU’s internal and external policies. In its work, the Commission has always sought to provide for anti-corruption safeguards, closing potential loopholes, ensuring that transparency and clarity reduce the space in which corruption can thrive, and that the institutions and bodies responsible for implementing EU policies at all levels adhere to high standards of independence and integrity. Coordination of key players in the EU also helps both to minimise the risk of corruption damaging EU policies, and to support action at national level and worldwide. Enforcement measures that ensure corruption comes to light and is punished are an effective deterrent. EU policies and programmes therefore include a wide range of measures not only to deter and detect corruption, but also to strengthen the effectiveness of action to investigate and sanction corruption when it occurs. The proposed Directive will further strengthen this framework.
Building a culture of integrity and transparency
A political and institutional system based on integrity, transparency and accountability in public life is the best guarantee against corruption. This is why effective anti-corruption approaches often build on measures to enhance transparency, ethics and integrity, as well as regulating areas such as conflict of interest, lobbying and revolving doors.
Experience, including from the Rule of Law reports, shows that at both national and EU level a strong response to corruption builds on systems to prevent and address conflicts of interests; establishing transparency and lobby registers; and setting up viable mechanisms for the disclosure and verification of public officials’ assets and interests.
Transparency is not only central to political accountability – it is also essential in building integrity. 
A
 
system based on transparen
t
 decision-making and implementation is crucial 
in
 clos
ing
 off the opportunities for corruption
. D
igital transactions and
 the
 publication of financial and other data by public bodies 
also 
mak
e
 corrupt exchanges more difficult
. 
Strong and clear ethical frameworks, with the structures and institutions required to function well, are powerful tools. There is also an important international dimension
: 
a
s
 par
t
 
of
 the upcoming Defence of Democracy
 initiative
19
, the Commission will come forward with 
legislation on the transparency of the representation of foreign interest
s, to 
limit the risk of covert interference in democratic processes at EU and Member State level
.
Over the past decades, important integrity and anti-corruption standards have been developed in these areas. The functioning of key institutions and the development of strong anti-corruption and integrity frameworks has greatly benefited from the work of organisations like the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, the OECD, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Building on these standards, integrity policies and policy reforms must however be tailored to the context if they are to be successful. Recommendations in the Rule of Law report seek to support Member States in enacting such reforms and strengthen integrity rules, prevent conflicts of interests, enhance lobbying transparency, regulate and enforce rules on ‘revolving doors’ between public and private functions and have in place effective asset and interest disclosure systems.
Preventive policies to address corruption risks
Like all crime, corruption feeds on opportunity. EU policy design seeks to narrow the potential for corruption, by identifying risks and creating the necessary tools to address them.  One of the first tasks of the new EU network against corruption will be to 
map 
common high-risk areas
 by 2024. The Commission will lead this work in close consultation with Member States. It will form an important component in the development of future EU initiatives on fighting corruption.
This
 will build on work already undertaken in areas of manifest risk. 
Public procurement
 
—
 which represents 14
 
% of EU Member States’ GDP 
—
 
has been a particular focus
. 
A
 major reform in 2014
20
strengthened safeguards on conflict of interest, 
with
 mandatory exclusion of tenderers on grounds of past corruption. Full electronic procurement 
has been
 mandatory in the EU since 2018 and work continues to build a culture of transparency
,
 with publication of all public procurement contracts
 and with an obligation for Member States to report cases of corruption 
linked to
 EU procurement
. Open competition in a transparent environment conducted by trained professionals is key to shutting 
down
 opportunities for corruption.
Corruption thrives where it cannot be identified or proven. 
Corrupt practices are
 frequently associated with 
tax fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance
. T
ransparency rules in 
tax legislation
 help detect such practices
. Updates to 
the rules on 
a
dministrative 
c
ooperation in direct taxation
21
, and Value Added T
ax
22
, are intended to step 
up the 
exchange of information between Member States
,
 
which
 helps to 
identify
 corruption before formal criminal enquiries are launched.
A particular problem in identifying corruption is 
when
 shell companies and other opaque and complex corporate vehicles
23
are used to conceal transactions and the identity of beneficial owners
. The 
EU Anti-money Laundering Directive
 has been regularly revised and strengthened
24
to
 
introduc
e
 mandatory registers 
of 
beneficial ownership
 of corporate and other legal entities
25
. These registers 
help 
uncover conflicts of interest
, 
expos
e
 high-level corruption
, and support investigations into illicit flows of money. 
The Directive 
also 
has an important preventive value, as it requires 
obliged entities from the private sector to conduct 
greater
 customer due diligence in cases where higher risks are identified, for example in relation to politically exposed 
p
ersons
26
.
 The anti-money laundering package proposal of July 2021 further strengthens the EU framework to defend the integrity of its financial system and 
the 
internal market
27
.
Initiatives to combat specific risks of organised crime also help to limit the opportunities for corruption. An example is 
trafficking in cultural goods
, where the 
December 2022 EU Action Plan against Trafficking in Cultural Goods
28
provides a comprehensive framework for the EU and the Member States to advance prevention, detection and criminal justice response to cultural goods trafficking.
Preventing corruption by design requires 
independence and impartiality
 
in
 national bodies set up under EU law
,
 
whether national competition authorities, public procurement review bodies, or regulators
. This
 bring
s
 together the EU and national levels in a single culture of prevention and integrity.
 
For example, competition legislation sets minimum guarantees of independence for national authorities enforcing EU competition rules
29
. These include rules on conflict of interest and protection against dismissal. Internal market legislation setting up rules for national regulatory and safety authorities in areas such as 
electronic communications
, media, electricity, gas,
 food and feed,
 the single European railway area and railway safety requires Member States to guarantee th
at
 
the bodies concerned 
are 
functional
ly
 independen
t 
and 
exercise
 their powers 
in an
 impartial and transparent
 way
.
Identifying and mapping areas of risk
 is key to effective anti-corruption action. Corruption activities are constantly evolving and adapting to new opportunities, and patterns differ across Member States. No sector or area of activity is safe from corruption risks, but 
common high-risk areas
 deserve particular attention – usually those involving management of significant public funds or access to permits or to a critical service. Sectors such as healthcare, construction or urban planning are therefore vulnerable, and sudden increases in public investment can create new corruption-related risks. Areas with a risk of high criminality such as ports, which are pressure points for organised crime groups trafficking drugs, also need constant monitoring.
Examples of 
how emerging areas for action can be tackled include 
investor residence and citizenship schemes
 (
‘
golden visas
’
 and 
‘
golden passport
’
 schemes)
 
which the Commission has warned can be used to hide 
financial crimes, including bribery and corruption
30
.
 
T
he Commission considers investor citizenship schemes, under which citizenship of a Member State, and thus Union citizenship, is systematically awarded in exchange for pre-determined payments or investments, and without a genuine link with the awarding Member State, to be in breach of EU law and has taken action against Member States maintaining such schemes
31
. 
Sport
 is another example 
of an area 
relatively recently i
dentified as high
 
risk, 
where organised crime groups 
seek profit through 
match 
fix
ing
 through corruption and extortion
32
.
Detecting corruption
While internal and external control mechanisms and authorities in the public sector – as well as active and resourceful law enforcement bodies – are best placed to detect signs of corrupt activities, society as a whole has a key role to play in bringing corruption to light.
M
any prominent recent cases have 
been revealed
 thanks to people speaking up when they encounter wrongdoing in the context of their work. 
T
he key role of 
whistleblowers
 in defending the public interest
 is recognised in the 2019 
W
histleblower Protection Directive
33
.
 
This Directive
 
contributes to the fight against corruption in many key 
EU policy areas
, such as
 
public procurement, financial services, the protection of the EU’s financial interests, 
environmental protection, transport safety, public health
,
 and nuclear safety.
 
It
 
establishes effective 
standards of protection 
against retaliation 
for whistleblowers unveiling illegal activities
. It requires Member States to set up
 
clear internal 
and external reporting 
channels 
that can guarantee confidentiality 
for 
whistleblow
ers
 
in both public and private sectors, 
a
s well as
 
defined
 feedback and
 follow-up. 
Effective implementation of the W
histleblower Protection Directive is a key step in building strong
 enforcement of
 anti-corruption 
rules. 
T
he proposed Directive would
 tak
e
 this a step further by 
extend
ing
 the protection to pe
ople
 reporting corruption offences. 
This
 will
 encourage people to report corruption offences without fearing retaliation and improve the effectiveness of anti-corruption investigations.
Journalists 
play a particularly important part in uncovering corruption
. However, many journalists 
and media organisations 
fac
e
 harassment and other threats when speaking up on issues of public interest and exposing corruption.
 
The 
Commission
 recently proposed measures to improve their safety
34
and better protect them from abusive 
litigation
35
. 
The 2022 proposal for a European Media Freedom Act
36
sets out
 important 
provisions to strengthen media independence.
 
S
afeguards against political interference in editorial decisions through independence requirements
, adequate
 stable funding of public service media
, 
and
 
rules
 on the transparency of media ownership and the allocation of state advertising
 will allow media to better exercise their important societal role, including in maintaining oversight and exposing corruption
. The proposal also sets out measures to protect the independence of editors and
 on
 disclos
ing
 conflicts of interest.
The
 p
rivate sector 
is also an important partner in fighting corruption. In the financial sector, private 
entities 
have due diligence obligations which help to protect 
the 
EU
 financial system. 
They need 
support in their efforts to identify and report cases of laundering 
the
 proceeds of corruption
, and 
the EU anti-money laundering framework seeks to enhance private sector entities’ understanding of the risks and strengthen their detection and reporting capabilities.
 
This is backed up with i
nformation from Financial Intelligence Units and law enforcement authorities on corruption typologies, trends and risk indicators. 
To foster a culture of integrity, the
 2022 
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive
37
sets out obligations for private sector entities within its scope to include in their management reports 
information related to 
business ethics and corporate culture, including 
anti-corruption
.
Cracking down on corruption
Investigating, prosecuting and sanctioning corruption is largely the responsibility of law enforcement in Member States. Monitoring under the Rule of Law reports reveals challenges in the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of corruption cases, and the proposed Directive on combatting corruption by criminal law addresses specific weaknesses. The fight against corruption needs independent and efficient justice systems, equipped with sufficient financial means, adequate human resources and the opportunity to make full use of digital tools, to effectively apply and enforce anti-corruption legislation, based on impartial investigations and prosecutions. Effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions for corruption and due recovery and confiscation of the proceeds of these crimes support the credibility of justice and law enforcement and act as deterrents.
Stepping up
 cooperation between EU and national levels 
can deliver a stronger response to corruption. Harmonised rules on offences and sanctions, rules on judicial cooperation in criminal matters based on the principle of mutual recognition, and the work of specialised agencies and bodies such as Eurojust, Europol, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) contribute to detecting, investigating and prosecuting corruption.
T
he Commission has taken important steps to equip Member States with better tools for depriving criminals of 
illicitly gained wealth
, including
 assets obtained from corruption
 crimes
38
. The mutual recognition of freezing orders
39
makes freezing and confiscati
ng
 criminal assets across the EU quicker and simpler
. More recently, 
in May 2022 
the Commission proposed a 
D
irective on asset recovery and confiscation
40
to
 ensur
e
 that profits stemming from criminal activity, including corruption, can be effectively traced, identified, frozen, managed and confiscated
41
.
Other EU legislation supporting 
law enforcement against corruption
 includes the newly adopted e-evidence package, reflecting the increased use of electronic communication channels by criminals and organised crime structures. This will allow national authorities to request electronic evidence for criminal cases directly from service providers in other Member States. 
Corruption is amongst the offences 
for which it will be possible to use
 
European Production and Preservation Orders. The European Arrest Warrant
42
already allows for a swift cross-border surrender procedure between judicial authorities of Member States for criminal prosecution or the execution of a custodial sentence, 
including
 in corruption cases.
 The work of l
aw enforcement
, in particular Asset Recovery Offices and anti-corruption authorities
,
 is also 
facilitated by the possibility to 
access and use financial 
and bank account 
information
43
.
The EU’s work to combat fraud supports anti-corruption efforts
The EU and its Member States share responsibility for protecting the EU’s financial interests
44
. Very often action to combat fraud 
–
 where people try to secure illicit gains from the EU budget 
– 
also helps action against corruption 
–
 
where public power is being misused for the same purpose.
The EU 
Financial Regulation
45
includes general provisions on fraud prevention and detection, setting out rules on public procurement and the award of funding
, to 
minimise the risks of corruption 
affecting
 EU funds. 
This includes rules on the avoidance of conflict of interests
46
. 
The Commission’s current 
Anti-Fraud Strategy
47
provides a framework for the coordinated application of the rules protect
ing
 
the EU
 budget 
from fraud, corruption and other intentional irregularities. 
For the implementation of 
the 
EU 
budget
, different tools 
are 
in place to ensure strict controls are carried out
, 
adapted to
 whether 
financial programmes
 are implemented in direct management by the Commission, in indirect management, or in shared management with Member States. Tools such as the
 
early detection and exclusion system
 
(EDES)
 
help 
to detect fraudulent or unreliable economic operators 
and 
disqualify them from obtaining EU funds.
 A 
recent proposal to revise the Financial Regulation
48
would also 
improve the quality 
of data on the recipients of EU funding (including their beneficial owners), 
including through the compulsory use of a single integrated IT system for data-mining and risk scoring provided by the Commission. The proposal would also 
exten
d
 
the 
EDES
 to 
new areas of spending
49
.
Rigorous 
ex-ante assessment
s
 
help ensure that 
entities implementing EU funds 
have 
effective internal control system
s
 in place
 to notably prevent fraud and corruption
. 
A
nti-fraud and anti-corruption safeguards 
are 
key requirements
 
of the 
control systems for EU funds at national level
50
, and  Member States
 
have an 
obligation to
 
prevent, detect, correct and report on irregularities, 
which 
may be linked to 
corruption
. 
Audit bodies
 also have an important role to play in ensuring that effective systems are in place to detect and prevent corrupt practices
. T
he European Court of Auditors
 and
 the 
Commission’s 
Internal Audit Service complement Member State and programme-specific audits
,
 and clawback mechanisms are applied to all EU funds affected by corruption
.
As well as preventi
ng
 corruption in EU funds, the EU has also developed a strong institutional architecture to help identify and prosecute any corruption linked to 
the 
EU 
budget
. This includes OLAF, the EPPO, the coordinating role of Eurojust, and the analytical capacity of Europol, all in close cooperation with national authorities. The 
EPPO
 has been operational since June 2021
51
, and is responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to 
judgment
 the perpetrators of, and accomplices to, criminal offences affecting the 
EU’s 
financial interests
, including corruption that can damage the EU budget
. Within this scope, it undertakes investigations and exercises the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the participating Member States.
The proper functioning of investigation and public prosecution services in tackling corruption is key 
to
 ensuring that the rule of law is upheld. 
The 
g
eneral regime of conditionality
52
protects the 
EU budget from breaches of the 
principle
s of the rule of law that affect or seriously risk affecting the budget. 
This includes 
systemic failures by Member States to address 
corruption. 
Under this Conditionality Regulation, the Council may, on a proposal of the Commission, suspend commitments
 or
 payments or adopt other measures 
if
 breaches of the 
principle
s of the rule of law in that Member State
53
affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the EU budget or the protection of the 
EU’s 
financial interests in a sufficiently direct way.
4.
SUPPORTING THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION IN MEMBER STATES
Corruption comes in many forms and corruption patterns are different across Member States, at national and local level, and across different sectors. And while certain common rules, standards and good practices are necessary to fight corruption, effective policy responses need to be adapted to specific challenges, risks and needs. The EU is therefore undertaking tailor-made initiatives to support each Member State in its fight against corruption at national level.
EU support for national anti-corruption reforms
The EU is making its own contribution to the development and sharing of best practices through the annual 
Rule of Law report cycle
. Since 2020, the Commission has been monitoring anti-corruption developments at national level as one of the central aspects of the rule of law. Since 2022, the reports also include recommendations for each country, aimed at supporting Member States in their efforts to take forward ongoing or planned reforms, encouraging positive developments, and helping to identify where improvements or follow-up to recent changes or reforms may be needed.
The country assessments in the annual Rule of Law reports show how each Member State works to prevent corruption, adapting laws to keep pace with new trends and drawing on lessons learned; how they build a culture to combat corruption; and efforts to improve enforcement. Through recommendations and the follow-up to each report, the Commission engages at technical and political level with Member States to offer expertise, help them overcome the challenges identified and take forward the necessary reforms. The process also offers valuable common insights, highlighting specific themes which can be taken forward in the new network.
The fight against corruption, together with the independence and efficiency of the justice system and the quality and inclusiveness of the law-making process, are also part of the 
European Semester
. Given their economic significance and direct impact on the business environment, investment, economic growth and jobs, the assessments in the European Semester reports include the challenges some Member States face from corruption. Specific examples have included more effective protection for whistleblowers, strengthening the anti-corruption framework by setting up new independent control bodies, more stringent control procedures, systematic controls of asset declarations, creating independent avenues to pursue corruption cases, and stricter conflict of interest rules and their enforcement.
Country-specific recommendations under the Semester have guided concrete reforms and investments in several Member States to improve their capacity to fight corruption. These are reflected in concrete milestones in the national 
recovery and resilience plans
. Specific reform commitments taken in these plans by several Member States will ensure the prevention, detection and correction of conflict of interests, corruption and fraud relating to the use of public funds.
The Commission also makes use of sectoral programmes to support anti-corruption efforts in the Member States. The 
Technical Support Instrument
 provides tailor-made technical expertise to help Member States build administrative capacity and design and implement reforms, many of which have focused on increasing their defences against corruption. Examples of reforms supported by the Technical Support Instrument include embedding transparency and accountability in national structures, technical support for the design and implementation of ethical guidelines and anti-corruption and anti-fraud strategies, and support for transposing and implementing EU laws on anti-corruption.
Under the 
Internal Security Fund
, the EU also funds a range of anti-corruption actions. These aim mainly to reinforce coordination and cooperation between law enforcement authorities and between other national authorities, including with key bodies such as Europol and relevant international organisations. Examples include capacity building for national anti-corruption authorities as well as support for projects carried out by civil society organisations. The 
Union Anti-Fraud Programme 
offers support to Member States to counter fraud, corruption and any other illegal activities affecting the Union’s financial interests. Specifically, the programme helps national authorities strengthen their investigative capacity and includes a training section.
Example: 
The ‘Speak Up Europe’ project aims to empower Europeans to speak up about misconduct in public, private and civil society organisations. It encourages safe channels for reporting corruption and provides technical, legal and advocacy assistance. The Commission also funds national projects. In Austria, this included a programme by the Federal Bureau of Anti-Corruption to spread awareness in both government and civil society. In Lithuania, the Special Investigative Service was supported in 2021 to launch an e-learning platform with professional anti-corruption education training material for civil servants and for others interested in creating an anti-corruption environment.
Supporting judicial and law enforcement authorities
Cooperation between law enforcement 
authorities
 
can make a major contribution to 
i
nvestigating
 
and prosecuting corruption. 
Eurojust
 fosters judicial cooperation between Member States in the fight against corruption. In 2021, it supported Member States in 326 corruption cases, set up 11 
j
oint 
i
nvestigation 
t
eams and held 13 case
-
specific coordination meetings. Anti-corruption policies are highlighted in the 
European Judicial Training Strategy for 2021-2024
54
for
 train
ing
 justice professionals on EU law. The European Judicial Training Network organised several anti-corruption seminars in 2023. In its first 
7
 months of activities in 2021, the 
EPPO
 investigated 40 cases of corruption affecting the EU budget. In 2022, the number increased to 87.
The connections between corruption and organised crime mean that 
Europol
 actively supports Member States in the fight against corruption by carrying out strategic analysis and providing support to criminal investigations and criminal intelligence operations. Europol has a European Financial and Economic Crime Centre to provide operational and analytical support to Europol partners and Member States when investigating financial and economic crime, including corruption, and when freezing and seizing criminal assets.
Example:
 Europol’s European Financial and Economic Crime Centre supported the Spanish Civil Guard (Guardia Civil) and National Police (Policía Nacional) to identify corruption amongst police and customs officers facilitating the trafficking of drugs into the EU. This corruption scheme aimed to facilitate the shipment of hundreds of millions of euros’ worth of cocaine and hashish into Western Europe. The Centre supported the investigation with actionable intelligence and analytical support, as well as direct operational support.
5
.
EU INSTITUTIONS AND THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION
The credibility of the EU’s action to tackle corruption in EU policies, and to support the efforts of Member States, rests on the effectiveness and reputation of its own institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Since the 1990s, the EU has built up a set of rules and processes designed to minimise the risk of corruption by its own staff and at political level. It has sought to put in place a set of ethical, integrity and transparency rules helping to prevent corruption, as well as new bodies to pursue any cases. However, recent events have served as a reminder that the EU institutions are not immune to corruption and that this framework must not only be applied with rigour and consistency, but also be continually updated. The EU institutions and the Member States should be held to the same standards, drawing on the same commitment to preventing corruption, a culture of integrity and enforcing demanding rules.
Within the EU institutions, there is a 
zero-tolerance policy 
towards corruption
. The foundation for preventing corruption is a 
strong ethical
, 
integrity
 and transparency
 framework.
 
The 
EU 
Staff Regulations
55
establish the individual ethical obligations for EU staff members. They contain specific rules for areas such as conflicts of interest, favours and gifts, honours and decorations, outside activities and public office, activities of spouses, obligations after leaving the service, confidentiality, reporting of possibly illegal activities, whistleblowing and disciplinary sanctions. 
Each EU institution, body, office and agency has a responsibility for applying the legal framework to its staff and ensuring compliance. This includes 
regular updates of internal rules, 
actions to raise awareness, providing advice to staff and sanctioning breaches of rules. 
Under the Staff Regulations, staff can face disciplinary sanctions for breaches of rules and institutions, bodies, offices and agencies can decide to set up dedicated, specialised internal services for investigation and disciplinary matters
56
. 
Obligations under the 
S
taff 
R
egulation
s
 apply in addition to those under the EU Financial Regulation
57
.
In order to allow for public scrutiny and give citizens and other interest groups the possibility to track lobbying activities at EU level, i
n 2021, the European Parliament, Council and Commission adopted a new joint framework for their cooperation on the transparency register
58
to further promote 
the 
ethical and transparent representation
 of
 
interest
s
 
at EU level
59
.
 It sets out 
a code of conduct 
with 
ethical rules and principles to be observed by registered interest representatives and is supplemented by internal transparency measures in the institutions concerning meetings and other interactions with lobbyists.
As regards 
Members of the EU institutions
, namely 
Members of 
the European Parliament, the President of the European Council, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the EU, the European Central Bank and the Court of Auditors, the Treaties set the different frameworks for the individual ethical obligations, and sanctions in case of breaches, of the 
Members of each institution
.
60
These
 are usually
 complemented by more detailed rules, notably rules of procedure or codes of conduct
61
,
 
which vary between
 the different
 institutions. 
The
se
 
ethical framework
s
 
require regular updates 
to further increase transparency, integrity and accountability in the EU institutions.
 
The Commission 
will
 therefore propose to establish an inter-institutional ethics body that will set strong common standards
 as well as measures 
to 
reinforce transparency
.
A core task of the 
European Anti-Fraud Office
 (OLAF) is to carry out administrative investigations into fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the EU’s financial interests. The EU institutions agreed in 1999 to extend OLAF’s mandate to cover all cases of serious misconduct committed by EU staff or by members of the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, regardless of any impact on the EU’s financial interests. This includes for instance serious matters relating to the discharge of professional duties or breaches of the code of conduct. Other institutions and bodies can join this Agreement, but some obstacles are encountered in terms of the practical application as regards OLAF’s access to information or premises of some institutions. Within its general powers to deal with cases of maladministration by EU institutions, the European Ombudsman also has an important oversight role.
National courts are competent to deal with cases related to criminal offences, including corruption and fraud, committed by staff or Members of the institutions. Such cases can be brought to court either by national prosecutors or, when the EU’s financial interests are affected, by the EPPO. If Members or staff benefit from immunity in respect of acts performed in an official capacity, the EU institution concerned must waive this immunity when such waiver is not contrary to the interests of the Union and its decision is subject to the control of the Court of Justice of the EU.
6
.
BUILDING A 
COMMON 
CULTURE TO CHALLENGE CORRUPTION
A collective, whole-of-society culture based on zero-tolerance to corruption is a strong expression of the European commitment to rule of law and high standards of integrity in public life. Fostering these values is an essential complement to more immediate action on prevention, detection and prosecution. Creating such a culture requires action on many fronts: from building ethics and integrity into the expectations of individual young people through their education, to facilitating exchanges between actors at national and European levels to strengthen understanding of the challenges and make them more determined to act. Close and regular coordination with all relevant public authorities, multilateral organisations, civil society, media and the private sector are essential.
Partnering with the private sector, civil society, research and academia, media as well as citizens can help to create a culture of integrity through a 
whole-of-society approach
. The Commission will prioritise awareness-raising campaigns and civic education programmes, emphasising the crucial role that individuals play in supporting a culture of integrity, including through exploring how those following such programmes could act as ambassadors for integrity as multipliers. The Commission will also map existing EU funding opportunities in the anti-corruption area to give them more visibility and coherence.
The 
Erasmus+ 
programme includes anti-corruption themes in its work on education, training, youth and sport in Europe.
 
Anti-corruption efforts are addressed under different policy priorities, such as civic engagement and responsible citizenship. The EU supports for example the Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree in Sports Ethics and Integrity at university level and Erasmus+ has supported innovative approaches to anti-corruption education in schools in Hungary, Italy and Slovenia. The 
Framework Programmes for research and innovation
 are also supporting research and collecting evidence on new forms of corruption with a view to developing innovative solutions for the benefit of anti-corruption authorities and practitioners.
Civil society
 has a key role to play, not only as watchdogs to identify potential risks or cases of corruption, but also as catalysts for fostering and maintaining an anti-corruption culture, through awareness-raising, educational and advocacy work. In many Member States, civil society organisations are important partners in the implementation of national anti-corruption strategies. This role can be expanded. An example is the ‘integrity pacts’ that have been developed as a tool to prevent corruption in public procurement, based on a commitment of the contracting authority and bidders to comply with best practice and maximise transparency. This work is monitored by a third actor, usually a civil society organisation. Integrity pacts are being promoted in the EU financial programmes for 2021-2027 and Member States are being encouraged to gradually build integrity pacts into their programmes.
A free and plural 
media
 and an environment in which journalists can work free of harassment or intimidation is essential for ensuring that the media can do its job as watchdog. The Commission supports actions that promote a free, diverse and pluralistic media environment. These include support for collaborative and cross-border journalism, monitoring risks to media pluralism, mapping violations of media freedom and defending journalists under threat. For example, since 2021, the EU has funded a Europe-wide rapid response mechanism for violations of press and media freedom and maintained an emergency support fund for investigative journalists and media organisations.
7
.
ANTI-CORRUPTION IN EU EXTERNAL POLICIES
Building anti-corruption actions into external policies is an important part of efforts to promote good governance and prosperity worldwide
. A
 
coherent approach between internal and external anti-corruption policies is important for the 
EU’s 
credibility. The EU promotes human rights, democratic governance, the rule of law and the fight against corruption policies as a priority in 
its external action
62
.
 The High Representative, supported by the Commission, is today putting forward a proposal 
for the establishment of a horizontal CFSP sanctions framework
.
 
More generally, in its external actions, the EU 
support
s
 
legal and policy reforms
 to
 build anti-corruption institutions and oversight bodies, 
and 
to 
strengthen civil society, whistleblowers
, human rights defenders
 and independent media
 as watchdogs against corruption.
 
Strong integrity standards in the EU’s own programmes help to promote 
high 
standards 
among
 partners. 
The fight against corruption is also part of the political and security dialogues with third countries and international organisations conducted by the High Representative on the Union’s behalf. 
The EU supports international cooperation in th
is field
,
 working 
with like-minded partners to raise standards
63
.
Use of common foreign and security policy (CFSP) sanctions to target corruption
Beyond the implementation of existing international anti-corruption legal instruments, an important debate is currently ongoing at EU level on the use
 of
 
CFSP sanctions
 to tackle systematic or widespread corruption in 
non-EU
 countries when this corruption seriously affects or risks affecting the 
EU’s 
fundamental values and interests
 or when action is needed to achieve other CSFP objectives, such as supporting democracy and the rule of law
. 
So far, a CFSP sanctions regime has only been designed to enable the EU to target corruption outside of the EU in 
two
 
specified
 third countr
ies
64
. A horizontal, thematic framework (not limited to a specific geographic context) addressing corruption would add an extra dimension and more flexibility to the Union’s sanctions
65
toolbox. The High Representative is therefore submitting a proposal for a Council Decision and, jointly with the Commission, a proposal for a Council Regulation for a thematic framework for CFSP sanctions targeting corruption, to complement our internal and external policy actions to fight corruption.
The proposal for 
the establishment of a horizontal CFSP sanctions framework
 will complement and enhance the Union’s capacity to tackle serious acts of corruption, by giving it a tool to adopt restrictive measures when those acts seriously affect or risk affecting the fundamental interests of the Union and the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Passive or active bribery of a public official or the embezzlement or misappropriation by a public official could constitute such serious acts of corruption, especially in a country that appears on the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes, or a country that suffers from strategic deficiencies in its national regimes on anti-money laundering and countering terrorism financing that pose significant threats to the financial system of the Union.
Anti-corruption as a priority in the EU’s enlargement and neighbourhood policies
In the 
enlargement
 
process
, alignment with existing EU law, adherence to the rule of law and anti-corruption reforms largely determine the pace of candidate countries’ progress towards accession to the EU. These are also priorities of the 
Eastern Partnership
, under which anti-corruption strategies are supported to promote high standards of integrity and transparency in public bodies, and to strengthen anti-corruption agencies, investigative capacity, justice reforms and civil society.
Regular monitoring of anti-corruption and related reforms
 under the annual 
‘
Enlargement package
’
 includes a detailed assessment of the state of play in 
each 
candidate and potential candidate
 country
,
 including
 guidelines on future reform priorities. The Commission reviews the legislative and institutional framework linked to both prevention and repression, 
with emphasis
 
on
 the actual track record of proactive investigations, indictments and court rulings (particularly for high-level corruption). In 2022, the Commission also rolled out a round of peer review missions focusing on the fight against corruption, organised crime and money laundering. 
The latest
 analytical reports on Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia
66
assess their capacity to assume the obligations of EU membership
,
 and t
he fight against corruption 
is 
a priority of these reports
. One important issue 
is 
‘
de-oligarchisation
’
, aiming to eliminate the excessive influence of vested interests in economic, political, and public life.
Positive steps have included 
a 
new e-platform 
for 
the systematic collection of data on organised crime and high-level corruption
, which can be used
 to help assess the progress of each partner
 country
 in upholding the rule of law. The aim of the platform is to empower national authorities of candidate countries and potential candidates to mainstream data collection and enable the aggregation of data and identification of trends
 
supported by the use of 
a
 dashboard based on Key Performance Indicators 
(KPI) 
identifying trends and anomalies
67
.
Example
: The EU contributes almost EUR 6 million to a project implemented by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to monitor serious corruption and organised crime trials, identifying systemic issues and providing recommendations to strengthen rule of law in the Western Balkans.
Promoting anti-corruption reforms in the EU’s external action and trade relations
The 
2020-2024 EU Action Plan on human rights and democracy
 has a strong focus on the rule of law and includes anti-corruption lines of action. Political, human rights and sectoral policy dialogues are among the tools used to implement these actions. This is reflected also in funding under the Global Europe/Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) programme.
The EU promotes democratic governance and the rule of law through 
thematic, 
bilateral and regional programmes, and support 
for
 improved public finance management. 
Support focuses on public administration reform and sound public financial management, capacity-building for law enforcement and judicial authorities, establishing a robust legal framework in line with international standards, 
and 
establishing and strengthening speciali
s
ed anti-corruption bodies, as well as providing 
support
 
to civil society, the media, whistleblowers, and human rights defenders. Broader support 
for
 the rule of law in key institutions and 
for
 improving the business and investment climate also benefits the anti-corruption framework.
 
Policy dialogues play 
a
 
key
 part
, supported by the shaping of EU financial support.
 
EU 
b
udget 
s
upport is an important tool for improving transparency and accountability at country level
 with corruption 
being
 
one of the risks analysed in the context of these funding operations
68
.
Measures are under way to strengthen the 
anti-corruption dimension in all development
 areas. As well as the targeted programmes above, this includes operational guidelines to provide in-depth guidance to EU Delegations working outside traditional governance areas, including sectors targeted by the EU’s Global Gateway Initiative. This rests on a broader Team Europe approach to the corruption threat, working together with Member States and International Financing Institutions (IFIs) and building on international standards and best practice. A number of global thematic programmes also support anti-corruption and the rule of law. The Team Europe Democracy (TED) initiative – bringing together 14 Member States – includes support to rule of law with a focus on accountability. The EU also partners with civil society to prevent corruption and promote open government.
A recent evaluation of EU support to rule of law and anti-corruption in partner countries
69
conclude
d
 that the EU has been less visible and successful in fighting corruption than in promoting the 
r
ule of 
l
aw, and recommend
ed
 that the EU assume global leadership in the fight against corruption. One of the benefits of a clear and robust EU anti-corruption framework, anchored in UNCAC, will be to serve as a benchmark in
 its
 partnerships 
with other countries outside the EU
.
EU trade policy also supports the fight against corruption. Since 2015, anti-corruption provisions are included into of the EU trade agreements with non-EU countries. Autonomous trade tools such as the EU General Scheme of Preferences (GSP) also include provisions aimed at addressing corruption. Under the GSP, additional market access (GSP+) can be provided to developing countries that ratify and effectively implement key international agreements, including the UNCAC. The EU monitoring process under the GSP rules involves exchanges of information, dialogue and visits to the country as well as the publication of regular progress reports.
Supporting anti-corruption work in multilateral fora
The EU leads by example in the fight against corruption, promoting the values of respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law by pushing forward the fight against corruption on the global agenda. To assist Member States and amplify the EU’s voice, the EU will intensify its efforts to facilitate and coordinate positions in multilateral fora, alongside its work as a party to UNCAC.
The review process of the implementation of UNCAC by the EU is well under
 
way, with the Commission coordinating. In December 2020, the Commission adopted a Communication on 
the review of the European Union under the Implementation Review Mechanism of the UNCAC
70
outlining the steps for cooperation among the EU institutions, bodies and agencies participating in the review process from July 2021. In September 2022, the EU submitted 
and published 
its self-assessment for the first cycle of the 
r
eview 
m
echanism.
 
The Commission is committed to promoting transparency and the involvement of civil society in the review process and will 
support
 the completion of the review under the first cycle by 2024.
Building on previous action in 2021 by the secretariats of GRECO, the OECD and the UNODC, the EU will contribute to the international debate on how to best improve synergies and streamline reviews of implementation of anti-corruption measures. The experience of the EU’s Rule of Law report cycle and the ongoing EU review under UNCAC will help to ensure a strong EU participation at the upcoming UNCAC Conference of State Parties in December 2023.
The EU currently has an observer status with 
GRECO
 and this offers an important expert forum and a valuable complement to the work of the annual Rule of Law report cycle. GRECO has proved itself a highly valuable source of expertise and a driver of reform. The Commission will further step up its engagement with GRECO by establishing a more regular and formal dialogue, including by inviting GRECO to have a standing involvement in the network. In parallel, the Commission will continue discussing with the other institutions the possibility of moving toward full participation of the EU in GRECO.
8.
CONCLUSION
:
 LOOKING FORWARD
Integrity, transparency and the fight against corruption are clear political commitments of the Union. The current set of proposals will further strengthen the fight against corruption in the EU, raising the standards of EU law to ensure better prevention and fight against corruption as well as providing for an international sanctions mechanism. The Commission invites the European Parliament and the Council to give swift consideration to the proposed Directive on combating corruption by criminal law. The Commission and the High Representative invite the Council to give swift consideration to the proposal to establish a new framework of CFSP sanctions targeting corruption.
The proposals accompanying this Communication will complement the constant efforts made to deepen anti-corruption across a wide range of areas. These efforts include regular updates to the framework to promote integrity and guard against the risks of corruption, maintaining strong anti-corruption provisions in all relevant horizontal and sector-specific legislation. Ensuring that corruption prevention is adequately mainstreamed into the design of new policies and programmes, and the evaluation of existing ones, will continue to be a priority for the Commission. This will be informed by the new strand of work to map corruption-related risks in high-risk sectors.
Corruption cannot be fought in isolation. Cooperation and exchange of experience, and a constant dialogue between Member States and the EU level on how to develop and apply reforms and tools to prevent, detect and prosecute corruption, are key ingredients for making anti-corruption efforts a success on the ground. By establishing 
the EU network against corruption
, the Commission will give new impetus to corruption prevention efforts across the EU.
Fighting corruption benefits society as a whole, and individual citizens should be fully engaged in this work, alongside civil society organisations and the private sector. The Commission will prioritise awareness-raising campaigns and civic education programmes, as well as 
map existing EU funding opportunities for anti-corruption actions
, with a view to provide more visibility and coherence and to improve their impact.
Fighting corruption within the EU’s borders is important for the credibility of EU action in the international arena. As well as the extension of the sanctions regime, deepened engagement in multilateral fora such as UNCAC and GRECO will help the EU’s contribution in building strong and coherent understanding of why effective integrity and anti-corruption policies are so central to security and prosperity worldwide. The EU will continue its work to fight against corruption and promote good governance and the rule of law as one of the major priorities of the enlargement process and the EU’s external relations more generally.
The workstreams set out in this Communication represent a major EU commitment to further efforts to combat corruption and to work towards a comprehensive and strategic approach with 
an EU Anti-corruption Strategy
. This will be an essential part of how the EU can ensure a democratic and prosperous future equal to EU citizens’ expectations.
(1)
This estimate is based on the work of specialised institutions and bodies, such as the International Chamber of Commerce, Transparency International, UN Global Compact, World Economic Forum, and Clean Business is Good Business, which suggest that 
the loss of economic wealth due to 
corruption amounts to 5 % of GDP at world level. Another estimate suggested that the costs of corruption were between EUR 179 billion and EUR 990 billion per year in the EU (The Cost of Non-Europe in the Area of Corruption study by RAND Europe, 2016).
(2)
See for example 2022 Transparency International Global CPI:
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022
.
(3)
Special Eurobarometer 523 on Corruption (2022) & Flash Eurobarometer 507 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2022).
(4)
Proposal for a Directive on combatting corruption
 
 COM (2023
) 
234
.
(5)
Proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Se
curity Policy to the Council 
for a Council Decision concerning restrictive measures against serious acts of corruption
 (HR(2023)108)
 and Joint Proposal
 for a Council Regulation on restrictive measures against serious acts of corruption
 (JOIN(2023)
13
)
.
(6)
There is no single legal definition of corruption due to the various forms it can take.
(7)
Criminal Law Convention on Corruption plus the Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (CETS 191), and a Civil Law Convention on Corruption (CETS 191). The work of the Council of Europe also includes Twenty Guiding Principles against Corruption (Resolution (97) 24), as well as Recommendations covering areas such as the responsibilities of public officials and party financing.
(8)
The 1997 OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. The work on prevention includes the OECD Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying and the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity.
(9)
See:
https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/socta2021_1.pdf
.
(10)
COM(2020) 605 final.
(11)
COM(2021) 170 final.
(12)
Joint report of Europol and the Security Steering Committee of the ports of Antwerp, Hamburg/Bremerhaven and Rotterdam (2023) Criminal networks in EU ports, Risks and challenges for law enforcement.
(13)
UNCAC covers corruption in both the private and the public sector. Additional international initiatives that provide business ethics guidance come from the World Economic Forum, the
United Nations Global Compact
, the
Alliance for Integrity
, Transparency International, the OECD and the G20.
(14)
Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union.
(15)
Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 (OJ L 192, 31.7.2003, p. 54-56).
(16)
Directive (EU) 2017/1 371 of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law.
(17)
COM(2022) 245 final.
(18)
The proposed Directive
 
is based on Articles 82(1)(d), 83(1) and 83(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.
(19)
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13744-Transparency-of-covert-interference-by-third-countries_en
.
(20)
Directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU of 26 February 2014 (‘the Concessions Directive’, the ‘Classical Directive’, and the ‘Utilities 
D
irective’).
(21)
Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation (the ‘DAC’) 
and its amendment.
 A further 
proposal to amend the DAC 
(‘DAC8’
 – COM (2022) 707
) is currently ongoing. 
The proposal
 
provides that tax information that is exchanged under the DAC between Member State tax authorities can also be used for other purposes, for example for anti-money laundering and anti-corruption purposes
 as well as purposes covered by an act based on Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
EU
. This will facilitate the cooperation between relevant authorities of Member States and a more effective fight against corruption.
(22)
Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax 
set up 
Eurofisc, 
a
 network of Member States to fight against cross border VAT fraud, 
a
ble 
to request information from OLAF and Europol. Further improvements on the cooperation of tax authorities with EU institutions and bodies are envisaged as announced in the Action Plan for fair and simple taxation.
(23)
On 22 December 2021, the Commission proposed a key initiative to fight against the misuse of shell entities for improper tax purposes, COM(2021) 565 final.
(24)
Directive 2015/849 of 20 May 2015, amended by Directive 2018/843 of 30 May 2018.
 This is complemented by Directive 2018/1673 of 23 October 2018 on combating money laundering by criminal law, which harmonises definitions and sanctions of money-laundering criminal offences, including corruption as a predicate offence.
(25)
Collection of beneficial ownership data has also been made compulsory for control and audit purposes in a number of basic acts, such as the regulation setting up the Recovery and Resilience Facility or the Common Provision Regulation. This is also part of the proposal for the upcoming review of the Financial Regulation
(26)
Under the anti-money laundering legislation, 
a 'politically exposed person’ (PEP) is an individual who is or has been entrusted with a prominent function. As PEPs hold positions that can be abused for the purpose of corruption/bribery and the laundering of the subsequent illicit funds, they are considered as posing a higher risk and shall therefore be subject to additional due diligence measures.
(27)
The package consists of proposals for a new Anti-money Laundering Directive (COM(2021)423); for an Anti-money Laundering Regulation (COM(2021)420); for a Regulation establishing an Anti-money Laundering Authority (COM(2021)421) and for a recast of the 2015 Transfer of Funds Regulation (COM(2021)422).
 The package is currently under inter-institutional negotiations.
(28)
COM (2022) 800 final.
(29)
Directive (EU) 2019/1 of 11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market (Article 4 ‘Independence’).
(30)
COM(2019) 12 final of 23 January 2019.
(31)
In March 2022, in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Commission recommended that Member States immediately assess whether past naturalisations of Russian or Belarusian nationals, which were based on an investor citizenship scheme, should be withdrawn because the person concerned is subject to the Union restrictive measures or because it significantly supports the war in Ukraine. The Commission also recommended that Member States take immediate action to address the risks posed by investor residence schemes (C(2022) 2028 final of 28 March 2022).
(32)
In 2019, the Commission published a study on ‘Mapping of corruption in sport in the EU’, which set out the links between doping and match fixing and corruption.
(33)
Directive
 (EU)
 2019/1
9
37 of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law.
(34)
C(2021) 6650, 16 September 2021.
(35)
COM/2022/177 final and C/2022/2428 of 27 April 2022.
(36)
COM(2022) 457 final.
(37)
Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of 14 December 2022.
(38)
COM(2021) 170 final.
(39)
Regulation 2018/1805 of 14 November 2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders.
(40)
Proposal for a Directive on asset recovery and confiscation; COM(2022) 245 final.
(41)
Together with the proposed Directive on the criminalisation of the violation of restrictive measures, the Asset Recovery and Confiscation Directive will allow for the confiscation of assets of individuals and entities circumventing EU restrictive measures imposed due to Russia’s war against Ukraine.
(42)
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA).
(43)
Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of 20 June 2019 laying down rules facilitating the use of financial and other information for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of certain criminal offences.
(44)
Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
(45)
Regulation 2018/1046.
(46)
See also Commission Notice “Guidance on the avoidance and management of conflicts of interest under the Financial   Regulation” 2021/C 121/01, OJ C 121 of 9 April 2021.
(47)
COM(2019) 196 final.
 As part of the internal control framework, the Commission has designed an Anti-Fraud Strategy at corporate level (CAFS) as well as tailored anti-fraud strategies in each of its departments, which applies to all management modes of the EU programmes and funds.
(48)
COM(2022) 223 final.
(49)
Notably shared management
, which accounts for more than 70% of the EU budget
 and the Recovery and Resilience Facility. 
The Commission has also set up a variety of tools to prevent, detect and investigate the possible misuse of EU funds, such as the risk-scoring tool Arachne or the Irregularity Management System.
(50)
Regulation 2021/1060 and Regulation 2021/2116.
(51)
Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
 22 Member States are currently part of the enhanced cooperation and participate in 
the 
EPPO.
(52)
Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092.
(53)
Possible breaches of principles of the rule of law under the regulation include situations where national authorities investigating and prosecuting corruption do not function properly, where national measures to prevent and sanction corruption are insufficient, or wh
e
re there is lack of effective and timely cooperation with OLAF or with the EPPO.
(54)
COM(2020) 713 final.
(55)
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community).
(56)
The Commission set up its Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) in 2002 to enforce ethics and integrity in the Commission. It investigates facts which may constitute breaches of the Staff Regulations, and carries out disciplinary procedures to be adjudicated by a Disciplinary Board in cases of serious misconduct. Sanctions are set out in the Staff Regulations.
(57)
See Section 3.2.
(58)
Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 May 2021 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on a mandatory transparency register.
(59)
Under the Interinstitutional Agreement, the registration of interest representatives in the transparency register is a necessary precondition for carrying out certain types of interest representation activities. The Agreement also sets out a code of conduct which contains the ethical rules and principles to be observed by interest representatives that sign up to the transparency register.
(60)
Article 223(2) TFEU; Article 15(5) and (6) TEU for the President of the European Council; Article 245 TFEU for the Members of the Commission; Article 6 of Protocol No. 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU for the Members of the Court; Article 11 of Protocol No. 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and the European Central Bank; Article 286 TFEU for the Members of the Court of Auditors.
(61)
As for Commissioners, the Code of Conduct for the Members of the Commission (C(2018)700, OJ C 65, 21.2.2018, p. 7) clarifies their obligations deriving from the Treaties, in particular as regards the principle of independence, possible conflicts of interests and their obligation to discharge their duties in the general interest of the Union. An Independent Ethical Committee advises the Commission on the compatibility with the Treaties of former Commissioners envisaged post-office activities and any ethical question related to the Code. According to Article 245 TFEU, if obligations are breached, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be compulsorily retired or deprived of a pension or other benefits in its stead.
(62)
Following from Article 21 of the Treaty on the European Union, respect for the rule of law and the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms are founding values of the EU and fundamental principles guiding the EU’s action in its external relations.
(63)
For example: OECD Network on Governance (GovNet) and Anti-Corruption Task Team (ACTT), Summit for Democracy Cohorts, IFIs and multilateral organizations, EU Member State and Team Europe initiatives.
(64)
See Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1277 of 30 July 2021 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Lebanon and Council Regulation (EU) 2021/1275 of 30 July 2021
concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Lebanon
.
 See also 
Council Decision
 (CFSP) 2023/891
 
of 28 April 2023
 
concerning restrictive measures in view of actions destabilising the Republic of Moldova
 and 
Council Regulation (EU) 2023/888 of 28 April 2023 concerning restrictive measures in view of actions destabilising the Republic of Moldova
.
(65)
The Union has adopted thematic restrictive measures to tackle serious human rights violations and abuses, combat terrorism, the proliferation and use of chemical weapons, and cyber attacks threatening the Union or its Member States, see for example EU Sanctions Map available at
https://www.sanctionsmap.eu
.
(66)
2 February 2023,
Analytical reports on Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia (europa.eu)
.
(67)
The dashboard will report on the Key Performance Indicators to allow comparisons between countries. The final version of the e-platform will be available to the Commission from June 2023.
(68)
In the implementation of external funds, corruption is among the grounds under which all co-financing agreements signed with partner countries can be suspended or terminated.
(69)
Evaluation of the European Union support to rule of law and anticorruption in partner countries (2010-2021) - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu)
(70)
COM(2020) 793 final.

Summary:
Communication on the fight against corruption
SUMMARY OF:
Joint communication on the fight against corruption
WHAT IS THE AIM OF THE JOINT COMMUNICATION?
The communication on the fight against corruption aims to provide an overview of existing 
European Union
 (EU) anti-corruption legislation and policies, identify the challenges and reflect on how to step up future EU action.
KEY POINTS
The EU and all the EU 
Member States
 are parties to the 
United Nations Convention against Corruption
, the only legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument, and remain committed to its implementation.
In May 2023, the 
European Commission
 published this communication alongside a 
proposal
 for a 
directive
 to 
combat corruption through criminal law
 and a new sanctions regime for corruption as an 
anti-corruption package
.
The communication establishes the 
EU network against corruption
 and tasks the Commission with 
mapping areas at high risk of corruption in the EU
 in preparation for a future 
EU anti-corruption strategy
.
Impact of corruption
According to the communication, corruption:
is highly damaging to society, democracy, the economy and individuals;
undermines institutions and public services, enables 
organised crime
 and foreign interference and hinders sustainable economic growth; specifically, the 
EU security union strategy
 (see 
summary
) and the 
2021–2025 EU strategy on organised crime
 have identified the particular risk of corruption in sectors such as healthcare, waste management, construction and transportation;
costs the EU economy at least €120 billion per year.
EU anti-corruption framework
The EU has criminal legislation to fight corruption, but it is fragmented and outdated.
The main EU laws are:
the 
1997 convention on the fight against corruption involving officials
 (see 
summary
); and
Council Framework Decision 
2003/568/JHA
 on combating corruption in the private sector (see 
summary
).
More recent measures include:
Directive (EU) 
2017/1371
 on the protection of the EU’s financial interests by means of criminal law (‘PIF Directive’, see 
summary
); and
Directive (EU) 
2024/1260
 on asset recovery and confiscation (see 
summary
).
The EU identifies and addresses corruption risks in areas such as 
public procurement
, tax legislation and corporate transparency.
The effective investigation, prosecution and sanctioning of corruption are key, with the support of 
EU agencies
 and tools like the 
European Arrest Warrant
 and asset recovery mechanisms.
The proposed directive on combating corruption aims to establish common EU-wide rules on definitions, penalties, prevention and enforcement.
The communication establishes the EU network against corruption, which brings together law enforcement, public authorities, practitioners, civil society and other stakeholders, acting as a catalyst for corruption prevention across the EU.
The Commission is tasked with 
mapping common areas where corruption risks are high across the EU
 in preparation for a future 
EU anti-corruption strategy
.
Supporting anti-corruption efforts in the Member States
The EU supports Member States’ anti-corruption reforms through:
the 
rule of law reports
 and their targeted recommendations to Member States;
the 
European semester
;
concrete milestones in the 
recovery and resilience plans
;
technical assistance; and
funding.
Integrity and transparency
The EU will partner with the private sector, 
civil society
, researchers, the media and citizens to foster a culture of integrity, transparency and zero tolerance for corruption.
The main priorities will be:
awareness raising;
civic education; and
support for 
whistleblowers
, journalists and 
human rights
 defenders.
Beyond the EU
The EU promotes the fight against corruption in its 
enlargement
 and 
neighbourhood
 policies, 
trade
 relations and development cooperation.
The 
High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
, supported by the Commission, has proposed a 
common foreign and security policy
 sanctions framework to target serious acts of corruption outside the EU.
BACKGROUND
For further information, see:
Anti-corruption
 (European Commission).
MAIN DOCUMENT
Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Economic and Social Committee on the fight against corruption (
JOIN(2023) 12 final
, 
3.5.2023
).
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Regulation (EU) 
2024/1083
 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
11 April 2024
 establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market and amending Directive 2010/13/EU (European Media Freedom Act) (OJ L, 2024/1083, 
17.4.2024
).
Directive (EU) 
2024/1260
 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
24 April 2024
 on asset recovery and confiscation (OJ L, 2024/1260, 
2.5.2024
).
Regulation (EU) 
2024/1624
 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
31 May 2024
 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing (OJ L, 2024/1624, 
19.6.2024
).
Regulation (EU, Euratom) 
2024/2509
 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
23 September 2024
 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ L, 2024/2509, 
26.9.2024
).
Regulation (EU) 
2023/1543
 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
12 July 2023
 on European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings and for the execution of custodial sentences following criminal proceedings (OJ L 191, 
28.7.2023
, 
pp. 118–180
).
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the EU Action Plan against Trafficking in Cultural Goods (
COM(2022) 800 final
, 
13.12.2022
).
Directive (EU) 
2022/2464
 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
14 December 2022
 amending Regulation (EU) 
No 537/2014
, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting (OJ L 322, 
16.12.2022
, 
pp. 15–80
).
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the EU Strategy to tackle Organised Crime 2021–2025 (
COM(2021) 170 final
, 
14.4.2021
).
Regulation (EU) 
2021/947
 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
9 June 2021
 establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe, amending and repealing Decision 
No 466/2014/EU
 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EU) 2017/1601 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 
No 480/2009
 (OJ L 209, 
14.6.2021
, 
pp. 1–78
).
Successive amendments to Regulation (EU) 2021/947 have been incorporated into the original text. This 
consolidated version
 is of documentary value only.
Regulation (EU) 
2021/1149
 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
7 July 2021
 establishing the Internal Security Fund (OJ L 251, 
15.7.2021
, 
pp. 94–131
).
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the EU Security Union Strategy (
COM(2020) 605 final
, 
24.7.2020
).
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Ensuring justice in the EU – A European judicial training strategy for 2021–2024 (
COM(2020) 713 final
, 
2.12.2020
).
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Court of Auditors: Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy: enhanced action to protect the EU budget (
COM(2019) 196 final
, 
29.4.2019
).
Directive (EU) 
2019/1937
 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
23 October 2019
 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 
26.11.2019
, 
pp. 17–56
).
See 
consolidated version
.
Directive (EU) 
2015/849
 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 May 2015
 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) 
No 648/2012
 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 
5.6.2015
, 
pp. 73–117
).
See 
consolidated version
.
Council Framework Decision 
2003/568/JHA
 of 
22 July 2003
 on combating corruption in the private sector (OJ L 192, 
31.7.2003
, 
pp. 54–56
).
Convention
 drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 (2) (c) of the Treaty on European Union on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union (OJ C 195, 
25.6.1997
, 
pp. 2–11
).
Council Framework Decision 
2002/584/JHA
 of 
13 June 2002
 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ L 190, 
18.7.2002
, 
pp. 1–20
).
See 
consolidated version
.
last update 
11.7.2025

--- DANISH ---

Document:
$da_document

Summary:
$da_summary