Negotiators from the European Parliament and the Polish presidency of the EU Council made progress on Wednesday 26 March, during a trilogue meeting, towards possible compromises on the definitions of corruption offences covered by the new anti-corruption directive (see EUROPE 13607/11), but had to postpone several points to a later meeting, with some observers predicting that the text will take a few more months to reach agreement.
The two parties reportedly did not enter into technical negotiations, but were able to express some openness on certain definitions and inclusions of categories of persons covered by the text, with a few exceptions.
Article 11, on abuse of power, thus remains highly divisive, with the EU Council not ready to accept the European Parliament’s solution.
On this point, Parliament took up the Commission’s arguments, adding that it is necessary to define the offence of abuse of office in the public sector as the failure of a public official to perform an act, in violation of the law, in order to obtain an undue advantage “of any kind”.
The EU Council considers that Member States “may” take measures to make these crimes punishable, whereas the European Parliament considers that these measures “must” be taken by Member States.
Parliament also incorporated new aspects related, for example, to the financing of political parties, but the Council reportedly expressed reservations, also wondering whether the corruption directive was the right instrument.
While, according to one source, the meeting mainly consisted of reviewing the broad outlines of the respective mandates, the two parties also noted their differences of opinion on sanctions, with the EU Council wishing to stick to the sanctions already established in other criminal law directives such as the directive on environmental crime, while the European Parliament is pushing for tougher sanctions tailored to the seriousness of the corruption offence.
Another point of divergence that could be difficult to resolve, given the EU Council’s refusal to show flexibility, is that of immunities, privileges and amnesties.
The Council states that, “unless it is contrary to their legal system, their constitution and their constitutional principles”, Member States shall take necessary measures to ensure that the privileges or immunities from investigation and prosecution granted to national officials for the offences referred to in this directive can be waived.
Regarding amnesties, Parliament also wants Member States to “take the necessary measures to prohibit any pardon or amnesty for persons held responsible for any of the criminal offences referred to in Articles 7 to 14”, the chapters covering corruption offences up to incitement, complicity and attempted corruption. The date of the next meeting had not yet been set at the end of the meeting. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)