Annexes to COM(2011)308 - Fighting Corruption in the EU - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2011)308 - Fighting Corruption in the EU. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2011)308  |
| date | June 6, 2011 |
6. Conclusion
Corruption continues to be a cause of concern in the EU, as it is globally. Although the nature and extent of corruption vary, it exists in all Member States, causing serious economic, social, and democratic harm.
International instruments, and EU anti-corruption legislation, are already in place, but implementation remains insufficient. The Commission calls on EU Member States to ensure that all relevant legal instruments are fully transposed into their legislation and, crucially, effectively followed up and enforced through the detection and prosecution of corruption offences, backed up by criminal law provisions and a systematic track record of deterrent penalties and asset recovery.
To achieve this, firmer political commitment by all decision-makers in the EU is needed. The existing international monitoring and evaluation mechanisms have, so far, not produced the necessary momentum. Action at EU level is therefore needed to strengthen the political will, in all EU Member States, to vigorously tackle corruption.
To that end, the Commission will set up the EU Anti-Corruption Report to periodically assess Member States' efforts, starting in 2013. In parallel, the EU should negotiate its participation in the Council of Europe Group of State against Corruption (GRECO).
The EU should also continue, as part of a comprehensive approach, to address corruption through all relevant EU policies – internal as well as external. Greater focus should be put on corruption in the areas of judicial and police cooperation, modernised EU rules on confiscation of criminal assets, a revised EU public procurement legislation, better EU crime statistics, an enhanced anti-fraud policy to protect EU financial interests, the EU enlargement process, and greater use of conditionality in EU cooperation and development policies. At the same time, private-public dialogue at EU level on how to prevent corruption within the business sector should be further developed with the support of the Commission.
These initiatives will not, realistically, eradicate corruption, within or outside the EU. Taken together, they will however help to reduce the problem, to the benefit of all.
[1] This Communication uses the broad definition of corruption adopted by the Global Programme against Corruption run by the United Nations: 'abuse of power for private gain', which therefore covers corruption in both public and private sectors.
[2] 78 %, according to the 2009 Eurobarometer on corruption. This survey is conducted every two years. According to research by Transparency International, 5% of the EU citizens pay a bribe annually, see http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb. One study suggests that corruption may add as much as 20-25% to the total cost public procurement contracts, http://www.nispa.org/files/conferences/2008/papers/200804200047500.Medina_exclusion.pdf.
[3] The total economic costs of corruption cannot easily be calculated. The cited figure is based on estimates by specialised institutions and bodies, such as the International Chamber of Commerce, Transparency International, UN Global Compact, World Economic Forum, Clean Business is Good Business, 2009, which suggest that corruption amounts to 5% of GDP at world level. .
[4] From 6.23 in 2000 to 6.30 in 2010, out of the maximum 10. In the 2010 Index, although nine Member States were ranked amongst the 20 least corrupt countries in the world, eight Member States were ranked below 5. The main findings and tendencies of the Index for the EU have been confirmed by the World Bank's worldwide governance indicators, i.e. a clear differences among individual Member States, with nine EU Member States ranked as best anti-corruption performers and ten as worst performers. See also http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/worldmap.asp
[5] The Commission called for such efforts in 2003, COM(2003) 317 final.
[6] Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector (OJ L 192, 31.7.2003, p. 54).
[7] Council Decision 2008/801/EC (OJ L 287, 29.10.2008, p. 1).
[8] Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union lists corruption among those crimes for which directives providing minimum rules on definition of criminal offences and sanctions may be established, since corruption often has implications across, and beyond, internal EU borders. Bribery across borders, but also other forms of corruption, such as corruption in the judiciary, may affect competition and investment flows.
[9] See sections 4 and 5.
[10] The Commission does not have the power to bring legal proceedings against Member States for failure to transpose measures adopted under the Third Pillar of the Treaty, prior to the entry into force of the TFEU. Such proceedings will be possible from 1 December 2014, pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol No 36 on Transitional Provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon.
[11] See section 3.
[12] See section 2.2 and the Report from Commission to the Council on the modalities of EU participation in GRECO, COM(2011) 307.
[13] A specific monitoring mechanism applicable to two Member States, the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) for Romania and Bulgaria, has existed since 2006 (Commission Decisions 2006/928/EC and 2006/929/EC of 13 December 2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, pp. 56, 58). The CVM surfaced as an ad-hoc solution for the outstanding shortcomings found on the eve of EU accession. In this context, the Commission carries out verifications against a number of pre-defined benchmarks in the area of justice reforms and anti-corruption, as well as, in the case of Bulgaria, the fight against organised crime.
[14] Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (STE 173, adopted on 27 January 1999) and its additional Protocol (ETS 191, adopted on 15 May 2003); Civil Law Convention on Corruption (STE 174, adopted on 4 November 1999) and the Twenty Guiding Principles against Corruption (Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers' Resolution (97) 24).
[15] http://www.oecd.org/document/12/0,3343,en_2649_34859_35692940_1_1_1_1,00.html .
[16] http://www.transparency.org/global_priorities/international_conventions
[17] Council Decision 2008/801/EC (OJ L 287, 25.9.2008, p. 1).
[18] See Report from Commission to the Council on the modalities of EU participation in GRECO, COM(2011) 307.
[19] Council document 17024/09, adopted by the European Council on 10/11 December 2009. (OJ C 115, p. 1). See also the Resolution of the Council 6902/05, adopted on 14.4.2005, which called upon the Commission to also consider the development of a mutual evaluation and monitoring mechanism.
[20] Written Declaration No 2/2010 on the Union's efforts in combating corruption, adopted by the European Parliament on 18 May 2010.
[21] SET 173, of 27.1.1999.
[22] SET 174, 4.11.1999.
[23] Council of Europe Committee of Ministers' Resolution (97) 24.
[24] UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003.
[25] Adopted by the Negotiating Conference on 21 November 1997.
[26] Assessments carried out by civil society of relevance will be considered. This may include the on-going Transparency International study on the National Integrity Systems in the EU.
[27] See the Report from Commission to the Council on the modalities of EU participation in GRECO, COM(2011) 307.
[28] OJ C 195, 25.06.1997, p. 2-11.
[29] OJ L 192, 31.7.2003, p. 54.
[30] COM(2007) 328 final.
[31] COM(2011) 309 final. The Report found that only 9 Member States (i.e. Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Cyprus, Portugal, Finland and UK) have correctly transposed all elements of the offence as laid down in Article 2 of the Framework Decision.
[32] Austria, Germany, Italy.
[33] SET 173, 27.1.1999.
[34] Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Spain.
[35] Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and the United Kingdom.
[36] SET 174, 4.11.1999.
[37] The Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland.
[38] Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania. These Member States are not members of the OECD. Bulgaria is the only Member State non-member of the OECD which has adopted this Convention.
[39] OLAF has started with a systematic analysis of the corruption cases in order to identify the threats and vulnerabilities the EU budget is exposed to.
[40] See the Report from Commission to the Council on the modalities of EU participation in GRECO, COM(2011) 307.
[41] Annex III of the G-20 Seoul Summit Leaders’ Declaration, 11-12 November 2010.
[42] Council Decision 2008/852/JHA, (OJ L 301, 12.11.2008, p. 38).
[43] Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council based on Article 8 of the Council Decision 2007/845/JHA of 6 December 2007 concerning cooperation between Asset Recovery Offices of the Member States in the field of tracing and identification of proceeds from, or other property related to crime (COM(2011) 176 final); Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council based on Article 22 of the Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders (COM(2010) 428); Report from the Commission pursuant to Article 6 of the Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on confiscation of crime related proceeds, instrumentalities and property (COM(2007) 805 final); Report from the Commission based on Article 14 of the Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence (COM(2008) 885 final).
[44] Directive 2005/60/EC (OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 15).
[45] According to Article 21(2)(b) of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the "FIU shall be established as a central national unit. It shall be responsible for receiving (and to the extent permitted, requesting), analyzing and disseminating to the competent authorities, disclosures of information which concern potential money laundering, potential terrorist financing or are required by national legislation or regulation. It shall be provided with adequate resources in order to fulfill its tasks".
[46] Directive 2004/18/EC on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114) and Directive 2004/17/EC coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1).
[47] Green Paper on the modernisation of EU public procurement policy. Towards a more efficient European Public Procurement Market, COM(2011) 15 final.
[48] Conclusions of the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion: the future of cohesion policy, COM(2010) 642 final.
[49] Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 (OJ L 243, 11.9.2002, p. 1).
[50] Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 87).
[51] Green Paper on Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis, COM(2010) 561 final.
[52] Allegations of links between politicians and influential businesses or media owners have been made repeatedly in recent years, notably regarding financing of electoral campaigns.
[53] This support is ensured through the specific programme on 'Prevention and Fight against Crime'.
[54] COM(2006) 437 final.
[55] COM(2011) 12 final
[56] OLAF reports annually on its activities, see http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/reports/olaf_en.html.
[57] Communication on the protection of the financial interests of the European Union by criminal law and by administrative investigations: An integrated policy to safeguard the taxpayers' money, COM(2011) 293 final.
[58] COM(2011) 135 final.
[59] Chapter 23.
[60] Renewed consensus on enlargement endorsed on 14 and 15 December 2006.
[61] Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A new response to a changing Neighbourhood, COM(2011) 303.
[62] Communication on Governance and Development, COM(2003) 615 final, and Communication on Governance in the European consensus on development: towards an harmonised approach within the European Union, COM (2006) 421 final.
[63] E.g. the governance initiative for African, Caribbean and Pacific countries which took the form of an 'incentive tranche' of 2.7 billion Euros to encourage political will to reform.
[64] Communication on the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan, COM(2003) 251 final.
[65] COM(2011) 241 final.