Home /INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK TO FIGHT CORRUPTION IN EU MEMBER STATES

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK TO FIGHT CORRUPTION IN EU MEMBER STATES

Submitted by christian on Wed, 06/24/2015 - 18:25
  1. Austria: Since early 2010, anti-corruption efforts have been coordinated by the Anti-corruption Forum at federal government level. This high-level coordination committee, which meets four times a year, is composed of all competent authorities, including various federal ministries, the Länder, various authorities such as the specialised prosecution service for white-collar crime (the WKStA), the federal office for preventing and fighting corruption (the BAK), and the Financial Market Authority, as well as the private sector (Chamber of Commerce, Union of Civil Servants, Chamber of Notaries, Bar Association).
  2. Belgium: At federal level, the Bureau of Administrative Ethics and Deontology coordinates integrity policy. The institutional involvement of public bodies fighting corruption varies depending on the region. For example, the region of Flanders has involved the Flemish ombudsman in its whistleblowing protection scheme. The Flemish, Walloon and Brussels regions have their own internal audit services. Only the Flemish region’s audit agency has the authority to conduct investigations. If the audit agency finds evidence of criminal activities, it sends the file to the public prosecutor.
  3. Bulgaria: Reform efforts have resulted in the establishment of important and sometimes innovative structures to encourage specialisation in the judiciary and police. Since 2007, internal inspectorates of the administration, under the guidance of the Inspectorate General, have been strengthened. Joint teams between investigatory agencies and prosecution should also lead to a more effective response against corruption. However, the potential of this framework, including the Supreme Judicial Council’s powers to manage and lead the judiciary, has not yet been realised fully or consistently. The Commission for Prevention and Ascertainment of Conflict of Interest and the Centre for Prevention and Countering Corruption and Organised Crime (with its BORKOR project) have been embroiled in controversy. There was an overhaul in 2013 of police and security services dedicated to fighting corruption and organised crime. The outcomes of this overhaul remain to be seen. So far, few high-level cases have reached the courts. Dissuasive sanctions for corruption have not yet been applied. Public hearings in the appointment of senior magistrates marked a step in the right direction even if many of the appointments have continued to raise doubts about political influence.
  4. Croatia: Specialised prosecution services (i.e. Bureau for Combating Corruption and Organised Crime–USKOK) and the more recently established specialised police for the fight against corruption and organised crime (PNUSKOK) are now well equipped to carry out effective investigations. They have proven to be proactive, and have developed a good track record of investigations into allegations of high-level corruption. However, at judicial level, corruption-related crimes are frequently punished with low or even conditional sanctions, creating a climate of impunity. The recent first instance conviction of a former prime minister for corruption and the ongoing criminal proceedings against a number of former ministers illustrate allegedly illegal links between politicians and businesses, often related to public procurement. On the other hand, the high-level investigations also signalled that there is a will to prosecute high-level corruption. The sustainability of this trend will need to be assessed on a longer time perspective. Challenges still remain, notably when it comes to the effectiveness of the institutional framework and internal control mechanisms at both central and local levels, and the inter-institutional coordination, both horizontal and vertical, of anti-corruption policies.
  5. Cyprus: The Independent Commission Investigating Complaints against the Police (IAIAC) can investigate corruption allegations within the police force. Appointed by the President, the Public Service Commission has the competence to impose disciplinary penalties on civil servants but lacks investigative powers. The Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman) has been operating since 1991.
  6. Czech Republic: A government committee is in place to coordinate the fight against corruption. A special unit within the Czech police (UOKFK) investigates corruption and financial crime and deals with an increasing number of corruption investigations. Transparency International’s 2011 National Integrity System assessment concluded that the Ombudsman and Supreme Audit Office were the strongest institutions on good governance in the Czech Republic. Although the Ombudsman does not have specific powers to deal with corruption, he makes recommendations and provides a model for the civil service to function impartially and transparently. The legislative recommendations of the previous ombudsman who resigned in December 2013, have been largely ignored by the legislature. The Supreme Audit Office also plays an important role in anti-corruption policies pointing, for example, to deficiencies in the public procurement process. However, recent legislative efforts to strengthen its competence in relation to corruption powers and to cover local municipalities have not achieved results.
  7. Denmark: The Public Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime is the main body responsible for investigating corruption, whose multidisciplinary team is composed of prosecutors and investigators. The Danish civil service is considered to have a high degree of integrity. Due to Denmark’s tradition of high ethical standards and transparency in public procedures, few formal rules regulating integrity and anti-corruption are in place in the public administration. Denmark has a Code of Conduct for public officials since 2007. The Code deals with practical aspects describing situations that may arise in the public administration including ‘fundamental values and principles,’ ‘freedom of expression,’ ‘duty of confidentiality,’ ‘impartiality’ and the ‘acceptance of gifts.’ The Code has been distributed in public-sector workplaces, and information activities have been carried out in order to raise awareness about the Code. In 2007, The Ministry of Justice issued the brochure ‘How to Avoid Corruption.’ The brochure gives examples and interpretations of the Danish anti-corruption legislation.
  8. Estonia: The Ministry of Justice criminal policy department coordinates development and implementation of anti-corruption policy, including data collection, training and impact assessment. Law enforcement is entrusted to the Internal Security Service and Police and Border Guard (Ministry of Interior). In addition, the Ministry of Finance coordinates integrity and ethics training courses. The ministries of justice and finance are collaborating on new training programmes for civil servants to reflect updated anti-corruption rules. The government is also planning a review of practices at a wide range of public authorities concerning codes of conduct, ethics boards and ethics training. The Ministry of Finance is conducting a study on in-house risk assessment methods in central government agencies. Two parliamentary standing committees and two select committees have worked on legislative drafting, proceedings or implementation of the Anti-Corruption Act. A separate Supervisory Committee on Party Funding was formed under the Political Parties Act in May 2011.
  9. Finland: The Finnish administration is regarded as being transparent in its practices and is characterised by high standards, relatively non-hierarchical structures and little if any politicisation of key civil service positions. Combined with other social factors, these features contribute to a low level of corruption in public institutions. Rules and principles of conduct are to be found in several types of legislation such as the Constitution and the State Civil Servants Act (750/94). The handbook, ‘Values in the Daily Job – Civil Servant’s Ethics illustrates and provides guidelines on values and ethics for civil servants working in the state administration with the aim of maintaining Finland’s high standards of integrity and ensuring low levels of corruption. The Ministry of Finance has also published guidelines for government officials on hospitality, benefits and gifts. The National Audit Office, which operates in conjunction with Parliament, is responsible for auditing Finland’s finances, monitoring and evaluating fiscal policy and overseeing the funding of elections, political parties and affiliated entities. In this regard, the Audit Office may inspect the accounts of and the use of funds by any affiliated entity subject to monitoring, and has, in certain situations, the power to impose sanctions.
  10. France: The Central Service for Prevention of Corruption (SCPC), established in 1993, analyses data on corruption in France and coordinates prevention policies. Attached to the Minister of Justice and led by a magistrate, it presents the state of play on corruption, highlights selected issues, and provides recommendations in an annual activity report. Despite the valuable efforts of the SCPC, data on the scale of corruption networks and incidents is not collected systematically. Furthermore, many institutions do not have structures available for the detection of corruption. Over the years, there have been several plans to revise and expand its competences. The SCPC itself notes that its powers are no longer suitable to address the current need to prevent corruption, whether public or private, national or international. The UNCAC report on France recommended exploring the possibility of citizens filing anonymous reports with the SCPC on suspicions of corruption, as well as allowing natural and legal persons to consult SCPC or similar services in case of suspicions. The SCPC cannot investigate the allegations or remedy the injuries that the whistleblower may have been subject to.
  11. Germany: Detailed rules regulate the work of the public administration. Comprehensive codes of conduct aim to prevent corruption at federal level and in many Länder.  According to research 99% of the authorities apply the ’four eyes’ principle, whereby two individuals must approve important decisions, 80% have internal anti-corruption guidelines, 74% randomly monitor decision making where the risk of corruption is more prevalent, 62% have identified areas with high corruption risks, and 57% have appointed an anti-corruption commissioner. A comparatively high number of people working in the public sector are willing to press criminal charges against corrupt colleagues. Certain German municipalities, such as Hamburg, provide examples of local best practice for fostering integrity in the public sector.
  12. Greece: The institutional anti-corruption framework is complex, consisting of the General Inspector of Public Administration, specialised departmental inspection bodies or units within agencies and ministries, the Office of the Commissioner General of the State, the Financial and Economic Crime Unit (SDOE), the offices of public prosecution specialising in corruption recently established in Athens and Thessaloniki, the Financial and Economic Crime Prosecutor's Office, the Independent Authority to Combat Money Laundering, the internal affairs unit of the Greek police, the Supreme Court of Audit and the Ombudsman. Insufficient inter-agency cooperation raise concerns as to the ability of this framework to respond effectively to corruption challenges. In order to address these concerns, a national anti-corruption coordinator was appointed in mid-2013.
  13. Hungary: Anti-corruption policies at national level are coordinated by the Ministry of Justice. Police and law enforcement were seen as one of the reliable pillars of national integrity by Transparency International’s National Integrity System report in 2011, while the judiciary received a less favourable score. The National Election Office, the National Election Committee and the Ombudsman were assessed in the same report as the strongest pillars. The State Audit Office also plays an important role in the implementation of anti-corruption policies, notably through its control mechanism role. In 2011 an anti-corruption unit was established within the Chief Prosecutor’s Office. Public perception reveals some concerns regarding the effectiveness of prosecution of corruption. 82% of the Hungarian respondents to the 2013 Special Eurobarometer Survey on corruption say that high-level corruption cases are not sufficiently pursued (EU average: 73%). In 2011, the prosecution service reported 249 indictments out of 465 cases of alleged bribery and trading in influence. According to the Hungarian authorities, in 2011 and 2012 there were over 700 detected corruption cases. However, there are few examples of high-profile cases that have reached the courts. One such example concerns a former mayor of a Budapest district who was convicted in the first instance for selling local government property at a loss to straw-man companies to re-sell them at an unfair level of profit. The conviction was confirmed on appeal and is now undergoing second appeal proceedings. Overall, criminal proceedings in corruption cases appear to be rather lengthy. Over the last decade, successive governments have implemented several anti-corruption measures within the police where a number of corruption cases involving police officers have revealed vulnerabilities. Such measures concerned: the elimination of cash payments for fines and the introduction of integrity testing within the National Protection Service in 2012.
  14. Ireland: The competence to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute corruption and white-collar crime is spread across a number of agencies with a mandate to tackle corruption such as tribunals of inquiry, commissions of inquiry, high court inspectors, the Financial Regulator, the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO), local authorities, the Ombudsman, parliamentary committees on members' interests, the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation within the police, the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB), the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE), the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the Public Accounts Committee and the Director of Public Prosecutions (responsible for all criminal prosecutions of the most serious cases).
  15. Italy: Italy’s drivers for anti-corruption measures have for a long time been limited to law enforcement, prosecution, the judiciary and, to some extent, the Court of Audit. The latter has had an active role in the implementation of anti-corruption policies, including with regard to the new anti-corruption law, and through its operational activity consisting of an effective control coupled with a rather unique prosecutorial power for recovery of damages for losses incurred by the public administration. Transparency International's 2011 National Integrity Report assessed that the Court of Audit, law enforcement authorities, the judiciary and electoral services perform relatively well against corruption. However, the overall capacity of public administration, Parliament, Government, anti-corruption agencies, political parties, businesses, the Ombudsman and the media to control corruption was found to be rather low.
  16. Latvia: In 2008, Latvia imposed budget cuts on institutions involved in fighting and preventing corruption. The Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB) continues to play a central role. It has a record of carrying out high-profile investigations, despite a recent internal crisis. KNAB’s draft strategy for 2013-15 focuses on institutions in charge of significant assets and resources, healthcare, the judiciary, law enforcement, and political party finance. KNAB works in cooperation with the Finance Police, State Border Guard and other institutions. The Internal Security Bureau (ISB) of the State Police investigates criminal offences committed by police officers and reviews citizen complaints, including corruption-related ones. It is to become a separate body under supervision of the Ministry of Interior. The State Audit Office (SAO), which controls the use of central and local government resources, has a high degree of independence in law and in practice. In 2011, SAO discovered serious shortcomings in the annual reports of seven state institutions. Between 2006 and 2012, its findings resulted in 23 cases of administrative proceedings, 15 cases dismissed due to the statute of limitations, and 56 cases of criminal proceedings, of which one has led to a conviction and fine. Although criminal matters are generally adjudicated more swiftly than civil or administrative matters, delays in complex criminal cases are perceived as hindering the effective combating of corruption, given that few cases of high-level corruption have reached a final verdict. Convictions for corruption-related offences usually relate to lower to mid-level officials and transactions of modest amounts.
  17. Lithuania: The Special Investigation Service (STT) is in charge of prosecuting and preventing corruption. The Immunity Service, reporting to the Commissioner General of the Police, is responsible for the prevention and investigation of corruption within the Police. The prosecution service contains a division on investigation of organised crime and corruption. The Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission decides on disciplinary action against judges. The Chief Official Ethics Commission (COEC) is charged with supervising adherence to institutional ethics standards, regulating public and private interests in civil service, and controlling certain lobbying activities. UNCAC reviewers called for stronger inter-agency coordination and cooperation in enforcing anti-corruption laws.
  18. Luxembourg: An inter-ministerial committee, the Corruption Prevention Committee, was established in 2007 and meets on average once a year. Within the police, the Economic and Financial Department is specialised in fighting economic and financial crime. The EU Fifth Round Evaluation noted that, given Luxembourg’s importance as a financial centre and as regards the actual workload encountered, the Grand Duchy Police appeared to be critically understaffed in the financial sector. With the actual number of staff, the Service de Police Judiciaire (SPJ) seemed not to be in a position to adopt a pro-active approach. The Luxembourg public prosecutor’s office has an economic and financial section, although its major tasks are related to financial crime in general rather than to corruption specifically.
  19. Malta: Parliament set up a Select Committee on Strengthening Democracy in 2008 to consider transparency and accountability, public financing of political parties, and conflicts of interest of the Members of Parliament, parliamentary secretaries and ministers. The Economic Crime Unit of the Malta Police Force, set up in 1987, investigates corruption offences and produces annual statistics on its investigations. Police officers are subject to disciplinary rules and a code of ethics applicable to all public officials. The Anti-Fraud and Corruption Unit within the Internal Audit and Investigations Department (IAID) examines government activities and provides internal financial investigative services, separate from criminal investigations. The National Audit Office (NAO) has a mandate to promote accountability of public officers and to contribute to better management of public resources. It has access to all documents and records relating to the accounts of the bodies audited. However, investigative institutions face obstacles in collecting evidence such as witness testimony, and often rely on the police to take corruption allegations forward. The Permanent Commission against Corruption (PCAC) and Ombudsman also play a role.
  20. Netherlands: While there is no dedicated agency for the prevention and fight against corruption, anti-corruption and integrity policies are central to the Dutch public administration both at national and local level, with a particular focus on prevention. An Office for the Promotion of Public Sector Integrity (BIOS) has the specific task of helping the public administration to draft and enforce anti-corruption policies. For combating corruption, the Dutch police has had a highly specialised investigation service (National Police Internal Investigations Department - Rijksrecherche) since 1996. It reports to the Board of Procurators-General. It is responsible for investigating cases of corruption involving police officials, members of the judiciary and prominent public office-holders. More recently, it has also been given the task of investigating foreign bribery. GRECO recently pointed out that in the Netherlands, prevention of corruption among MPs, judges and prosecutors relies to a large degree on mutual trust, openness and public scrutiny, and commended their efforts on integrity. As to the risks in practice, the Rijksrecherche carried out a strategic analysis of vulnerabilities that might increase the risk of bribery of civil servants in 2010. It concluded that while reports of allegations of bribery were not evenly distributed in the civil service, the overall picture was positive- corruption was not widespread.
  21. Poland: The Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBA), a separate agency, carries the main responsibility for combating corruption. Specialised departments within appellate prosecutor’s offices as well as the Supreme Audit Office (NIK) and the Ombudsman (RPO) also play a role.
  22. Portugal: Specialised agencies within the prosecution service (the Central Department of Investigation and Penal Action – DCIAP) and the police (the National Unit for Combating Corruption) have been designated to investigate corruption cases. The Court of Auditors also takes a leading role in fighting corruption. The Council for Prevention of Corruption (CPC), set up within the Court of Auditors in 2008, is tasked with coordination and analysis of prevention policies. The Council recommended that all central and local public bodies, including state-owned companies, prepare plans for the management of corruption-related risks. Over 1 000 corruption prevention plans have been submitted to the CPC for assessment. The impact of these plans is yet to be assessed. The CPC does not have verification or sanctioning powers and cannot carry out checks on the substance of asset declarations or conflicts of interest. These tasks fall within the competence of the Constitutional Court and the Attorney General.
  23. Romania: Romania has set up a comprehensive institutional anti-corruption framework. The National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA), a specialised prosecution office, is tasked to investigate high-level corruption cases. The DNA has established a solid track record of non-partisan investigations into allegations of high-level corruption. The successful investigations it has carried out in the last decade revealed corrupt practices involving high-level politicians and public officials, members of the judiciary, law enforcement officials, and people from a wide range of sectors: transport, infrastructure, healthcare, extractive industries, energy, agriculture, sports, etc. For a long time the judiciary had been less effective in dealing with high-level corruption. A change was noted over recent years; the High Court of Cassation and Justice in particular set an example by increasing efficiency in the adjudication of complex corruption cases. The service known as the Anti-Corruption General Directorate (DGA) within the Ministry of Home Affairs is a specialised police structure mainly responsible for investigating corruption within the police, while also covering other sectors. The National Integrity Agency (ANI) checks conflicts of interests, incompatibilities and personal wealth of public officials. Since its establishment in 2008, the ANI has shown good results overall. In the past five years, the confirmation rate of the ANI's decisions on incompatibilities, as well as the administrative decisions on conflicts of interest exceeded 80%. Following the ANI's decisions, over EUR 1 million in unjustified personal wealth was confiscated on the basis of final court decisions. However, over time the follow-up of the ANI's decisions encountered considerable difficulties. The political will to support the independence, stability and capacity of the anti-corruption institutions and the judiciary has not been constant over time.
  24. Slovakia: In an effort to fight serious crime more effectively, Slovakia created a specialised criminal court (SCC) with exclusive jurisdiction to hear corruption cases, including domestic and foreign bribery. The Court is responsible for cases involving organised crime, serious economic crimes and crimes committed by certain categories of officials. Supreme Audit Office, also play an important role within the Slovak institutional framework.
  25. Slovenia: The KPK was established in 2002 and has gone through several institutional changes since then, further strengthening its powers and capabilities. The scope of the KPK's powers is very broad, ranging from administrative investigations to preventive measures, research and awareness-raising activities. Criminal investigation powers are vested in the criminal police, the National Bureau of Investigations and the prosecution services, which have recently taken steps to improve their track record of effective investigation policies. Specialised law enforcement teams focusing on corruption and economic crime have also been set up.
  26. Spain: A Specialised Prosecution Office for the Fight against Corruption and Organised Crime (FECCO) was created in 1995 within the General Public Prosecutor's Office, and its autonomy and capacity have been strengthened in the recent years. According to the 2012 activity report of the Public Prosecutor's Office, the FECCO had 40 prosecutors at its disposal in 2011 and is supported by units from tax administration, the General Intervention Board of State Administration and the national police. Its track record of judicial proceedings has constantly improved, from 88 in 2000 to 194 in 2007 and 266 in 2011. This positive trend also extends to the number of investigations completed. With regard to corruption allegations involving high-level officials, Spain’s Prosecutor General confirmed in November 2009 that the Public Prosecutor’s Office was in the process of investigating more than 800 people in over 700 political corruption cases. By 2012, according to research findings, nearly 150 additional people were under investigation. Preliminary results of a study on the capacity of and resources available to the judiciary presented by the president of the Spanish General Council of the Judiciary (Consejo General del Poder Judicial) in April 2013 showed that 1,661 cases currently in court concern mainly corruption and financial crimes. This illustrates a solid track record of investigations and prosecutions, including in high-level cases. As a result of this considerable workload, as highlighted by the General Council of the Judiciary, the pace of court proceedings is however rather slow. In response to concerns regarding lengthy criminal proceedings, the Spanish Government is currently considering a reform of the criminal procedure rules, as well as an overall reorganisation of the judiciary. A GRECO report adopted in December 2013, while praising the high quality of the Spanish judiciary and prosecution services, stressed a number of concerns related to the efficient functioning of the justice system with overburdened courts which do not always have sufficient capacity to handle the cases at high speed. Moreover, GRECO highlights the existing controversy regarding the structural independence of the governing bodies of the judiciary and prosecution services and the 'appearance that partisan interests could penetrate judicial decision-making processes' which is seen by GRECO as a particularly concerning aspect 'at a time when political corruption cases are on the rise'.
  27. Sweden: The public administration is generally regarded as efficient, providing comprehensive services of a high quality to both citizens and enterprises. The low levels of perceived and experienced corruption in Sweden are linked to the long tradition of openness and transparency of Swedish society and institutions and strong respect for the rule of law. The National Anti-Corruption Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General was established in 2002 after recommendations made by Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). It focuses on collecting information on corruption and developing methods of combating corruption, both at central and at the local/regional levels of governance. The National Anti-Corruption Unit has reported that, between 2003 and 2009, 280 pre-investigations led to 90 convictions. In January 2012, the National Anti-Corruption Police Unit was created to support the National Anti-Corruption Unit in corruption investigations, including foreign bribery.
  28. United Kingdom: There is effective cooperation among the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the Adviser on Ministerial Interests, and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. The Cabinet Office houses the International Anti-corruption Champion who coordinates activities across government. A wide, and potentially confusing, variety of channels exist for citizens to report suspected corruption, including a secure online platform at the Serious Fraud Office, a police central point of contact on fraud, sector-specific reporting mechanisms (such as healthcare  and tax and customs), as well as mechanisms at local level. There has not yet been a systematic effort by the government to streamline corruption reporting channels and raise public awareness of their existence.

 

 

Tags: 
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK TO FIGHT CORRUPTION IN EU MEMBER STATES

Add new comment