Following the initial round of negotiations that took place on 28 January, negotiators for the European Parliament and the Polish Presidency of the Council of the EU will hold the second trilogue on the new EU anti-corruption directive (see EUROPE 13174/4) on 26 March.
This next meeting is expected to focus mainly on Chapter 2 and the definition of the offence of corruption. The European Parliament’s and the EU Council’s mandates differ on this point as well as on prevention provisions, sanctions, limitation periods, and immunities, which are also on the agenda.
Regarding the definition of the offence of corruption, MEPs wanted to cover not only a larger number of people who play a leading role, such as anyone in charge of a public service or responsible for tasks of public interest, but also all those in charge of the EU budget. MEPs want the EU’s top decision-makers—namely MEPs, commissioners, and the president of the European Council—to be added to the ‘high-level officials’ category and subject to stricter rules. Provisions have also been envisaged for military officials, senior executives of public corporations, and officials of political parties represented in the European Parliament. For its part, the Council of the EU has deleted some of the categories mentioned in the European Commission’s initial proposal and has also indicated that the text should apply to high-level officials “without prejudice to immunities and privileges established under national constitutions or laws”.
Concerning prevention, the Council of the EU wants to avoid an overly prescriptive text, believing that a criminal law directive is not the right tool to contain detailed provisions on preventing corruption.
The European Parliament’s mandate notably now requires Member States to implement an anticorruption strategy and action plan developed with the participation of competent authorities, including specialised bodies, and civil society or to institute the establishment of a minimum amount of information to be made public concerning interactions between public officials and private persons or entities engaged in interest representation, including the proactive publication of lobbying meetings. “So far, there is a very cooperative spirit from all sides, and I am happy with the job the Polish Presidency of the Council is doing. You can tell they understand like no other the impact of corruption on society and the rule of law”, rapporteur Raquel García Hermida-van der Walle (Renew Europe, Dutch) told Agence Europe. “The Huawei corruption scandal highlights, once again, the importance of tackling corruption. It’s bad for taxpayers, bad for public trust, and dangerous for our security and integrity.” The MEP added, “This is the time to deliver on anti-corruption and to raise the bar.”
Link to the first ‘four-column’ table: https://aeur.eu/f/g47 (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)