Considerations on COM(2023)234 - Combating corruption - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2023)234 - Combating corruption. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2023)234 |
| date | May 3, 2023 |
(2) Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA42 lays down requirements on the criminalisation of corruption concerning the private sector. The 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 Union43 addresses certain acts of corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of the Member States in general. These instruments are, however, not sufficiently comprehensive, and the current criminalisation of corruption varies across Member States hampering a coherent and effective response across the Union. Enforcement gaps and obstacles in cooperation between the competent authorities of different Member States have also emerged. This Directive aims to amend and expand the provisions of those instruments. Since the amendments to be made are of substantial number and nature, both instruments should, in the interests of clarity, be replaced in their entirety in relation to the Member States bound by this Directive.
(3) The existing legal framework should be updated and strengthened to facilitate an effective fight against corruption across the Union. This Directive aims to criminalise corruption offences when committed intentionally. Intention and knowledge may be inferred from objective and factual circumstances. As this Directive provides for minimum rules, Member States remain free to adopt or maintain more stringent criminal law rules for corruption offences.
(4) Corruption is a transnational phenomenon that affects all societies and economies. Measures adopted at national or Union level, should recognise this international dimension. Union action should therefore take into account the work of the Group of States against Corruption of the Council of Europe (GRECO), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Office against Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
(5) To root out corruption, both preventive and repressive mechanisms are needed. Member States are encouraged to take a wide range of preventive, legislative and cooperative measures as part of the fight against corruption. Whereas corruption is first and foremost a crime and specific acts of corruption are defined in national and international law, failings in integrity, undisclosed conflicts of interests or serious breaches of ethical rules can become corrupt activities if left unaddressed. The prevention of corruption mitigates the need for criminal repression and has wider benefits in promoting public trust and managing the conduct of public officials. Effective anti-corruption approaches often build on measures to enhance transparency, ethics and integrity, as well as by regulating in 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.
(6) Member States should have in place bodies or units specialised in the repression and specialised in the prevention of corruption. Member States may decide to entrust a body with a combination of preventive and law enforcement functions. In order to ensure that these bodies operate effectively, they should meet a number of conditions, including having the independence, resources and powers that are necessary to ensure the proper administration of their tasks.
(7) The EU is a party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which is the most comprehensive international legal instrument to combat corruption, combining measures to prevent and fight corruption. It requires that parties to the Convention take legislative and other measures to establish criminal offences for bribery, misappropriation and money laundering and consider taking legislative or other measures to criminalise other acts (such as abuse of functions, trading in influence and illict enrichment). In line with the commitments contained in the Political Declaration adopted at the 2021 UN General Assembly Special Session against Corruption, the European Union should, to the extent possible, go beyond the minimum requirements of UNCAC and lay down additional measures for preventing and combating corruption. This Directive draws on the observations and best practices emanating from the Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the UNCAC.
(8) Taking account of the evolution of corruption threats and the legal obligations on the Union and Member States under international law, as well as the development of national legal frameworks, the definition of corruption should be further approximated in all Member States so that it covers corrupt conduct more comprehensively.
(9) To avoid impunity for corruption offences in the public sector, the scope of application needs to be well defined. First of all, the concept of public official should also cover persons working in international organisations, including the institutions, agencies and bodies of the European Union and international courts. This should, amongst other things, encompass persons acting as members of collegial bodies responsible for deciding on the guilt of an accused person in the framework of a trial, as well as persons who by virtue of an arbitration agreement are called upon to render a legally binding decision in disputes submitted by the parties to the arbitration agreement. Secondly, many entities or persons nowadays exercise public functions without holding a formal office. Therefore, the concept of public official is defined to cover all relevant officials, whether appointed, elected or employed on the basis of a contract, holding a formal administrative or judicial office, as well as all persons providing a service, which have been vested with public authority or who are subject to the control or supervision of public authorities in relation to the carrying out of such a service, even if they do not hold formal office. For the purposes of this Directive, the definition should cover persons working in state-owned and state-controlled enterprises, as well as in asset management foundations and privately-owned companies performing public service functions and the legal persons established or maintained by them. Any person holding a legislative office should be treated as a public official for the purposes of this Directive.
(10) It is necessary to strenghten the legal framework to combat bribery and to provide law enforcement and prosecution with the necessary tools. In bribery of public officials, there are two sides to distinguish. Active bribery exists when a person promises, offers or gives an advantage of any kind to influence a public official. Passive bribery exists when the public official requests or receives such advantagesin order to act or to refrain from acting in a certain way. This Directive should also set minimum rules on bribery and other forms of corruption in the private sector, where the immediate victims include companies that are impacted unfairly and where free competition is diminished by each bribe offered or accepted.
(11) In order to ensure that public officials do not intentionally use funds for purposes other than they were intended, it is necessary to lay down rules on the offence of misappropriation by public officials of property whose management is entrusted to them. In order to take a comprehensive approach to the fight against corruption, this Directive should also cover misappropriation in the private sector. In order for misappropriation to be criminal, it should lead to an advantage for the public official or a third party.
(12) Trading in influence, arising from the corrupt behaviour of those persons who are or claim to be in the proximity of power and try to exchange promises of exerting influence over decision-making processes in return for undue advantages should also be defined as a criminal offence. The constituent elements of the criminal offence should be that the instigator provides, or promises to provide the influence peddler with an undue advantage for exerting unlawful influence over an outcome or a process that is subject to decision-making. When carried out intentionally, this behaviour should be considered a criminal offence irrespective of whether the influence was exerted and whether or not the claimed influence leads to the outcome intended. This offence should not cover the legitimate exercise of acknowledged forms of interest representation which may seek to legitimately influence public decision-making but do not entail an undue exchange of advantages. Such forms of interest representation, such as advocacy for example, are often carried out in a regulated environment precisely for avoiding that a lack of transparency may allow them to become gateways to corruption. Having in place well-functioning additional rules on disclosing conflicts of interest, on ‘revolving-doors’ or on the financing of political parties, can also help to avoid grey areas and prevent undue influence.
(13) Moreover, it is necessary to define the offence of abuse of functions in the public sector as a failure to perform an act by a public official, in violation of laws, to obtain an undue advantage. In order to comprehensively fight corruption, this Directive should also cover abuse of functions in the private sector.
(14) Obstruction of justice is a criminal offence committed in support of corruption. It is therefore necessary to lay down a criminal offence for the obstruction of justice, which entails the exercise of physical force, threats or intimidation, or the inducement of false testimony or evidence. Actions to interfere in the giving of testimony or production of evidence, or with the exercise of official duties by judicial or law enforcement officials should also be covered. In line with the UNCAC, this Directive only applies to the obstruction of justice concerning proceedings relating to a corruption offence.
(15) Corruption feeds off the motivation for undue economic and other advantages. Ìn order to reduce the incentive for individuals and criminal organisations to commit new criminal acts and deter individuals from consenting to becoming fake property owners enrichment by corruption offences should be criminalised. This should, in turn, complicate the concealment of illicitly acquired property and reduce the spread of corruption as well as the damage done to society. Transparency helps competent authorities to detect possible illicit enrichment. For example, in jurisdictions where public officials are required to declare their assets at regular intervals, including when taking up and completing duties, authorities can assess whether the declared assets correspond to declared incomes.
(16) The criminal offence of enrichment builds upon the rules on the criminal offence of money laundering laid down in Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European Parliament and of the Council44 . It is meant to address those cases where the judiciary considers that the corruption offence or offences cannot be proven. Like the predicate offence in money laundering, the burden of proof is of a different nature. This means that in criminal proceedings regarding the criminal offence of enrichment, when considering whether property is derived from any kind of criminal involvement in a corruption offence and whether the person had knowledge of that, the specific circumstances of each case should be taken into account, such as the fact that the value of the property is disproportionate to the lawful income of the accused person and that the criminal activity and acquisition of property occurred within the same time frame. It should not be necessary to establish knowledge of all the factual elements or all circumstances relating to the criminal involvement, including the identity of the perpetrator. When a person is convicted of a criminal offence as defined in this Directive, the competent authorities can recover the illicitly obtained property on the basis of Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union45.
(17) In order to deter corruption throughout the Union, Member States should lay down minimum types and levels of sanctions when the criminal offences defined in this Directive are committed. The maximum levels of imprisonment and other penalties should be sufficiently high to deter possible offenders and to reflect the harmfulness of corruption and the priority that the competent authorities should give to combat such offences. At the same time, these levels should be proportionate to the seriousness of each corruption offence and be coherent with levels of criminal sanctions set in Union and national law. Member States should ensure that sanctions are enforced to the extent necessary in order to deter the commission of those offences. Where the Member States consider the eventuality of suspended or conditional sentences, early release, parole or pardoning of persons convicted of any of the offences referred to in this Directive, judicial authorities should be able to take into account the seriousness of the criminal offences concerned among other factors.
(18) This Directive does not affect the proper and effective application of disciplinary measures or penalties other than those of a criminal nature, such as administrative sanctions. Sanctions that cannot be equated to criminal sanctions, which are imposed on the same person for the same conduct, can be taken into account when sentencing that person for a criminal offence defined by this Directive. For sanctions of criminal nature, the principle of prohibition of being tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence (ne bis in idem) should be fully respected.
(19) The competent authorities should be able to impose, in addition or as an alternative to imprisonment, sanctions or measures, that are not necessarily of a criminal nature, such as the temporary or permanent disqualification from holding public office or the exclusion from public procurement. Such measures have a general dissuasive effect and may reduce the recidivism of convicted offenders. Member States should also consider establishing procedures for the suspension or temporary reassignment of a public official accused of a criminal offence as referred to in this Directive, bearing in mind the need to respect the principle of the presumption of innocence and the right to an effective remedy.
(20) Legal persons should not be able to avoid responsibility by using intermediaries, including related legal persons, to offer, promise or give a bribe to a public official on its behalf. Moreover, fines for legal persons should be calculated considering the worldwide turnover of all legal entities related to the offender, including parent entities, subsidiary entities, linked trusts, or similar or comparable legal entities.
(21) Where the offence is committed by a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA46 or where the perpetrator abused their position to enable corruption, Member States should provide for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems. Whilst subject to judicial discretion, these aggravating circumstances should allow the judiciary to take into account the broader societal damage caused, for example by corruption perpetrated by organised groups, political parties, or persons holding positions of public responsibility. Member States should not be obliged to provide for any of the aggravating circumstances in this Directive when those circumstances are punishable as separate criminal offences with more severe sanctions.
(22) Corruption for the benefit of a third country has a particularly detrimental impact on democratic institutions and political life of the Member States and the Union. Member States should thus provide for an aggravating circumstance to cover such situations. Such an aggravating circumstance should cover corruption offences, such as bribery or trading in influence, that are committed with a view to create an advantage for a third country, such as altering the public decision-making in order to come to a decision that is favourable to the third country.
(23) Member States should ensure that mitigating circumstances are laid down in national legislation in relation to the offences covered by this Directive. Subject to judicial discretion, these circumstances should cover those cases in which offenders provide information or otherwise collaborate with authorities. Similarly, where legal persons have implemented effective internal controls, ethics, and compliance programmes, it should be possible to consider these actions as a mitigating circumstance. Lower sanctions should also be considered where, upon discovery of an offence, a legal person swiftly discloses information and takes remedial measures. In any case, it should remain within the discretion of the judge or the court to determine the actual amount of the sanction, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case.
(24) Members of Parliament and other public officials may have immunity or legal protection from investigation or prosecution, which helps strengthen their independence by protecting them against unfounded complaints, in particular with regard to opinions expressed or votes cast in the course of performing their functions. However, such immunities may hamper effective investigation and prosecution of corruption offences, including by affecting the detection and investigation or prosecution of other persons who do not enjoy immunity and may have participated in the offence. Moreover, the application of immunity without appropriate procedures to lift immunity in cases where there are grounds to suspect participation in criminal acts undermines the credibility of public institutions. There should therefore be an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, any immunities or jurisdictional privileges accorded to public officials for acts performed in the exercise of their functions, and on the other hand, the possibility of effectively investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating corruption offences.
(25) In order to increase trust in prosecution services whilst reducing the perception of corruption in Member States, discretionary powers under domestic law not to the prosecute persons for criminal offences referred to in this Directive on opportunity grounds should be exercised in accordance with clear rules and criteria and guarantee, with appropriate internal consultation, as well as the aim of deterring the commission of corruption offences and the effectiveness of the judicial process.
(26) Given the mobility of perpetrators and proceeds stemming from criminal activities, as well as the complex cross-border investigations required to combat corruption, all Member States should establish their jurisdiction in order to enable the competent authorities to investigate and prosecute this crime in a sufficient wide range of cases. including when the offence is committed in whole or in part in its territory. As part of that obligation, Member States should ensure that jurisdiction is also established in situations where an offence is committed by means of information system used on their territory, whether or not that technology is based in their territory.
(27) In order to ensure that the competent authorities have sufficient time to conduct complex investigations and prosecutions, this Directive provides for a minimum limitation period that enables the detection, investigation, prosecution and judicial decision of corruption offences for a sufficient period of time after the commission of such offences, without affecting those Member States which do not set limitation periods for investigation, prosecution and enforcement.
(28) Corruption offences are a difficult category of crime to identify and investigate, as they mostly occur as part of a conspiracy between two or more willing parties and lack an immediate and obvious victim who could complain. Thus, a significant proportion of corruption crime remains undetected, and the criminal parties are able to benefit from the proceeds of their corruption. The longer it takes to detect a corruption offence, the more difficult it is to uncover evidence. Therefore, it should be ensured that law enforcement and prosecutors have appropriate investigative tools to gather relevant evidence of corruption offences which often affect more than one Member State. Furthermore, Member States should allocate sufficient training, in close coordination with the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL), also on the use investigative tools to successfully carry out proceedings and the identification and quantification of proceeds of corruption in the context of freezing and confiscation. In addition, this Directive facilitates the gathering of information and evidence by setting out mitigating circumstances for offenders that help the authorities.
(29) Persons reporting information to competent authorities concerning past, ongoing or planned instances of corruption, which they have acquired in the context of their work-related activities, risk suffering retaliation in that context. Such whistleblowers’ reports can strengthen enforcement by enabling the competent authorities to effectively prevent, detect and prosecute corruption. Given the public interest in shielding public and private institutions from such acts, and in enhancing transparency, good governance and accountability, it is necessary to ensure that effective arrangements are in place to enable whistleblowers to use confidential channels, to alert competent authorities and to protect them from retaliation. Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council47 applies to reports of breaches affecting the financial interests of the Union as referred to in Article 325 of the Treaty and as further specified in relevant Union measures and thus applies to the reporting of all criminal offences falling within the scope of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council48. As regards the criminal offences referred to in this Directive, Directive (EU) 2019/1937 should be applicable to the reporting of such offences and to the protection of persons reporting such offences under the conditions established therein. Beyond the obligations flowing from Directive (EU) 2019/1937, competent national authorities should ensure that persons providing evidence or otherwise cooperating with criminal investigations are given the necessary protection, support and assistance in the context of criminal proceedings.
(30) Independent civil society organisations are crucial for the well-functioning of our democracies, and play a key role in upholding the common values on which the EU is founded. They act as essential watchdogs, drawing attention to threats to the rule of law, contributing to making those in powers accountable, and ensuring respect for fundamental rights. Member States should promote the participation of civil society in anti-corruption activities.
(31) Media pluralism and media freedom are key enablers for the rule of law, democratic accountability, equality and the fight against corruption. Independent and pluralistic media, in particular investigative journalism, play an important role in the scrutiny of public affairs, detecting possible corruption and integrity breaches, raising awareness and promoting integrity. Member States have an obligation to guarantee an enabling environment for journalists, protect their safety and pro-actively promote media freedom and media pluralism. The Commission’s Recommendation on the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists49, as well as the proposal for a Directive50 and a Commission Recommendation51 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’) include important safeguards and standards to ensure that journalists, human rights defenders and others can carry out their role unhindered.
(32) Member States should collect and publish data concerning the application of this Directive, which can be analysed and used by the Commission in the context of the monitoring, implementation and evaluation of the Directive, as well as the application of any of the Rule of Law tools, such as the annual Rule of Law report.
(33) To combat corruption effectively, efficient exchange of information between competent authorities responsible for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of corruption offences is crucial. Member States should ensure that information is exchanged in an effective and timely manner in accordance with national and Union law. This Directive, which aims to lay down common definitions of corruption offences, should serve as a benchmark for information exchange and cooperation between the competent national authorities under Directives (EU) XX/202352, (EU) 2019/115353, (EU) 2016/68154 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulations (EU) 2018/124055, (EU) 2018/186256 and (EU) 603/201357 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Decision 2008/633/JHA58.
(34) Corruption is a cross-cutting issue, while vulnerabilities differ from sector to sector, as well as the most adequate way to tackle them. Member States should therefore regularly perform an assessment to identify the sectors most at risk of corruption and develop risk management plans to address the main risks in the sectors identified, including by organising, at least once a year, awareness-raising actions adapted to the specificities of the sectors identified. Member States that have broad national anti-corruption strategies in place, may also choose to address their risk assessments and risk management plans therein, as long as the risks are assessed and the measures are reviewed regularly. For instance, investor residence schemes are among the sectors thatbear high risks for corruption59. and should therefore be included in the assessments of the sectors most at risk of corruption and the trainings to be conducted by Member States as provided for by this Directive.
(35) To provide for an equivalent level of protection between the Union’s and the national financial interests, the provisions of Directive (EU) 2017/137160 should be aligned with those of this Directive. To this end, the rules applicable to criminal offences affecting the Union’s financial interests as regards sanctions, aggravating and mitigating circumstances and limitation periods should be equivalent to those laid down by this Directive.
(36) The implementation of this Directive should ensure a level of protection of the Union’s financial interests which is equivalent to the protection of the national financial interests.
(37) Since the objective of this Directive, namely to subject corruption in all Member States to effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of this Directive, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.
(38) The intended dissuasive effect of the application of criminal law sanctions requires particular caution with regard to fundamental rights. This Directive respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) and in particular the right to liberty and security, the protection of personal data, the freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work, the freedom to conduct a business, the right to property, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and the right of defence, the principles of the legality and proportionality of criminal offences and sanctions, as well as the principle of ne bis in idem.
(39) [In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Ireland has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive.
AND/OR
(40) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption and application of this Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its application.]
(41) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA shall continue to be binding upon and applicable to Denmark.