EU 28 CORRUPTION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE EC

Corruption continues to be a challenge for Europe. Affecting all EU Member States, corruption costs the European economy around 120 billion euros per year. Member States have taken many initiatives in recent years, but the results are uneven and more should be done to prevent and punish corruption. These are some of the conclusions from the first ever EU Anti-Corruption Report published in February 2014 by the European Commission.

The EU Anti-Corruption Report explains the situation in each Member State: what anti-corruption measures are in place, which ones are working well, what could be improved and how.The report shows that both the nature and level of corruption, and the effectiveness of measures taken to fight it, vary from one Member State to another. It also shows that corruption deserves greater attention in all Member States. This is illustrated by the results of a Eurobarometer survey on the attitudes of Europeans towards corruption . The survey shows that three quarters (76%) of Europeans think that corruption is widespread and more than half (56%) think that the level of corruption in their country has increased over the past three years. One out of twelve Europeans (8%) say they have experienced or witnessed a case of corruption in the past year.

Austria: Austria needs to ensure the necessary resources to specialised prosecutors for processing corruption cases. Furthermore, making access to bank account information easier, in cases of suspicion of corruption, would also make the prosecution of bribery more effective. Austria should introduces a monitoring mechanism for checking declarations of assets for elected and appointed senior officials.

Belgium: Ethical rules should be implemented for all appointed and elected officials at federal, regional and local levels. Furthermore, Belgium should increase the capacity of the justice system and law enforcement to make sure that corruption cases are prosecuted before their time limits run out. Anticorruption legislation on party funding should be extended to parties that do not receive federal subsidies.

Bulgaria: Bulgaria should shield anti-corruption institutions from political influence and appoint their management in a transparent, merit-based procedure. Random assignment of cases in courts should be ensured by an effective nationwide system. A code of ethics should be adopted for members of the National Assembly, and dissuasive sanctions for corruption in public procurement should be enforced at national and local level.

Cyprus: Cyprus should streamline procedures to ensure effective investigations of corruption within the police. Codes of conduct for elected and appointed officials should also be introduced, in order to declare assets periodically. Cyprus should restrain the possibility of state-owned companies to sponsor political events, regulate donations to election candidates, and oblige parties to publish financial information online.

Croatia: Croatia should develop codes of conduct for elected officials at central and local levels with adequate accountability tools, carry out substantial checks of asset declarations and conflicts of interests of public officials, and establish an effective mechanism for prevention of corruption in state-owned and state-controlled companies. Furthermore, Croatia should implement a strategy for preventing corruption in public procurement, including with regard to the healthcare sector, and ensure protection mechanisms for whistleblowers who report corruption.

Czech Republic: The Czech Republic should put in place legislation covering conflicts of interest in the civil service, also covering merit-based recruitment and guarantees against arbitrary dismissal. Electoral campaign expenditures and donations should be made public in annual financial reports, and prosecutors should be able to handle corruption cases in an independent manner.

Denmark: Denmark should further improve the transparency and supervisory mechanisms of the financing of political parties and individual candidates. Further efforts should be undertaken to fight foreign bribery, by, for example, raising the level of fines for corporations.

Estonia: Additional efforts should be expended to improve transparency and oversight of the financing of political parties, as well as of public procurement. Estonia should adopt a code of conduct for Members of Parliament, accompanied by an efficient mechanism of supervision and sanctions.

Finland: Finland should oblige municipalities and regions to secure transparency in public contracts with private entrepreneurs. The anti-corruption Unit of the National Bureau of Investigations should effectively support investigations of corruption-related crimes, and coordinate anti-corruption procedures between government agencies.

France: France should conduct a comprehensive assessment to identify risks at local level, and set priorities for anti-corruption measures related to public procurement. France should also improve the legislation on foreign bribery, addresses the recommendations on party funding that have been raised by the Council of Europe, and makes efforts to increase the operational independence of prosecutors.

Germany: Germany would benefit from the introduction of strict penalties for corruption of elected officials. Germany should develop a policy to deal with the 'revolving door' phenomenon, where officials leave office to work for companies they may have recently helped. Furthermore, increasing awareness of the risks of foreign bribery amongst small and medium sized enterprises would be helpful, and Germany could also do more to address concerns over the way election campaigns are financed.

Greece: Public procurement remains a risk area, where greater oversight would be beneficial. More could also be done to carry out the sector-specific plans and to strengthen the work of the anti-corruption coordinator. Increasing supervision of party funding and declarations of interests by politicians, and revisiting the issue of immunity, would also contribute to a better situation in Greece.

Hungary: There are a number of areas where further efforts can be made, notably when it comes to financing of political parties, and control mechanisms surrounding public procurement procedures and conflicts of interest among public officials. More efforts can be made to strengthen accountability standards for elected and appointed officials, and to deal with risks concerning favouritism in public administration. Further steps can also be taken to progressively eliminate the practice of gratitude payments in the healthcare sector.

Ireland: More work could be done to improve the capacity to prosecute and punish corruption cases in a timely manner. Further work could also be required to address the few remaining concerns around the funding of political parties, election and referendum campaigns and corruption risks related to conflicts of interest at local level, as well as in the area of urban planning.

Italy: Italy should strengthen the integrity regime for elected officials through ethical codes, including accountability tools. Italy should also reinforce the legal and institutional framework on party funding. Furthermore, the deficiencies of the statute of limitation regime should be addressed without delay. Italy should also reinforce the powers and capacity of the National Anti-Corruption Agency to perform a strong coordination role, enhance transparency around public procurement and take further steps to address shortcomings regarding corruption in the private sector. More efforts are required with regard to conflicts of interest and asset disclosure of public officials, as well as control mechanisms around local and regional public spending.

Latvia: Latvia should build on the achievements of the Bureau for combating and preventing corruption (KNAB) by strengthening its independence and protecting it from potential political interference. Furthermore, promoting e-procurement techniques and greater competition for public contracts would help address risks in public procurement. Also, Latvia can improve transparency of state-owned companies, and apply Parliament's Code of Ethics more rigorously.

Lithuania: Lithuania should prioritise the prosecution of larger cases and develop prevention tools to detect corruption in procurement, focusing on the local level and the healthcare sector. Lithuania should also develop a strategy against informal payments in healthcare, and improve the control of declarations of conflicts of interest made by elected and appointed officials. The transparency of political party financing also requires additional efforts.

Luxembourg: Luxembourg should clarify accounting obligations and political parties’ accounting duties, and introduce a supervisory mechanism for political campaign accounts. Luxembourg should also improve the rules on conflicts of interests, and adopts legislation on access to public information. Resources used to combat financial and economic crime should be increased.

Malta: Malta should review the financing of political parties, which remains largely unregulated. Coordination among the institutions investigating corruption should also be improved to ensure the effective collection of evidence. Continued efforts should be undertaken to improve the transparency of judicial appointments, and of decision-making in environmental planning.

The Netherlands: Categories of assets of elected officials that must be declared should be extended and the Netherlands should focus their efforts on prosecuting cases of corruption in international business transactions, by increasing the capacity to proactively investigate foreign bribery.

Poland: Poland should implement a long-term strategy against corruption, listing specific actions, the timeframe and resources for their implementation, and those responsible. Further reforms are needed to safeguard the transparency of public procurement and healthcare. Poland should also strengthen safeguards against potential politicisation of the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBA). Anti-corruption measures should be strengthened around the supervision of state-owned companies.

Portugal: Portugal should ensure that law enforcement, prosecution and judiciary are well equipped to effectively deal with complex corruption cases, and establish a convincing track record of corruption cases. Further preventive action against corrupt practices in party funding should be undertaken, and codes of conduct for elected officials should be developed. Further efforts need to be made to adequately address conflicts of interests and asset disclosure of officials at local levels. Transparency and control mechanisms around public procurement procedures should be strengthened further. Moreover, Portugal should identify risk factors for corruption in local urban planning decisions.

Romania: Romania should ensure that all necessary guarantees remain in place to safeguard the independence and continuation of non-partisan investigations into high-level corruption cases, including with regard to elected and appointed officials. Romania should also develop comprehensive codes of conduct for elected officials and ensure dissuasive sanctions for corrupt practices. Strengthening of prevention and control mechanisms with regard to public procurement and public contracts is also suggested, including in state-owned and state-controlled companies. Furthermore, Romania should increase the efficiency of prevention and detection of conflicts of interest among public officials, as well as strengthen safeguards when it comes to allocation of public funding, and carry out strategies to reduce corruption in healthcare.

Slovakia: Slovakia should strengthen the independence of the judiciary, in particular by specifying criteria for when presidents and vice-presidents of courts can be removed from office. Slovakia should also increase transparency of party funding at local and regional levels. When it comes to misuse of EU Funds, Slovakia should strengthen control mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest.

Slovenia: Slovenia should apply dissuasive penalties to elected and appointed officials for when requirements to disclose assets and conflicts of interests are breached and take further steps to strengthen accountability standards for elected officials. Slovenia should also safeguard the operational independence and resources of anti-corruption bodies and prosecution services specialized in combating financial crime . Slovenia should strengthen anti-corruption mechanisms concerning state-owned and state–controlled companies, as well as around public procurement and privatisation procedures. More efforts can be made to ensure effective supervision of party funding.

Spain: Tailor-made anti-corruption strategies for regional and local levels administrations should be developed, on-going reforms and implementation of the new rules on party funding should pursued, and comprehensive codes of conduct for elected officials with adequate accountability should be developed. Irregularities in public procurement procedures at regional and local levels should be addressed further.

Sweden: Municipalities and county councils should be obliged to secure transparency in public contracts with private entrepreneurs. The level of fines for corporations committing foreign bribery should be raised, and liability should be triggered even if the crime has been committed by intermediaries or third-party agents. Sweden should also consider reviewing the provision of dual criminality, whereby an offence has to be a crime under the law of the country in which it has allegedly been committed. Sweden can also improve the transparency of financing of political parties further, by considering a general ban on donations from donors whose identity is not known.

United Kingdom: The UK should ensure transparency in out-of-court settlements in corruption cases. Accountability in the governance of banks can also be further strengthened. The UK should  also cap donations to political parties, impose limits on electoral campaign spending and ensure proactive monitoring and prosecution of potential violations.