Brussels, 04/01/2000 (Agence Europe) - As EUROPE has previously stated, Transparency International (TI), the only NGO that is solely dedicated to the fight against corruption presented to the European Institutions a memorandum entitled "Fighting corruption: what remains to be done at EU level". In this memorandum TI make concrete suggestions to make the fight more successful, to ask the Member States to ratify the conventions adopted during the last years and foresee the "criminalisation" of certain corrupt acts.
Transparency International point out that in its first memorandum entitled "The fight against European corruption: what the European Union can do", it tried to show that the European Union has the legal means and political ability at its disposal to act. It added that it should do so not only because corruption is morally reprehensible, but also because it represents an obstacle to the working of the internal market and the source of distortion to competition. In underlining that it holds a "some pride in having thus contributed to putting the fight against corruption on the EU agenda", TI reminds that in particular: - the 21 May 1997, the Commission presented to the Council and to the Parliament a "comprehensive policy paper" on "a Union policy against corruption"; - the 26 May 1997 the Council signed a convention on the criminalisation of transborder corruption, active and passive, within the Union; - in October 1998, the European Parliament adopted the Bontempi Report on combating corruption; - in December 1998, the Council adopted a Joint Action on corruption in the private sector.
TI calls upon "the new European Parliament and the new European Commission to keep up the momentum in this politically and economically sensitive area and to relaunch the discussion on certain specific matters". TI also urges the competent authorities of the Member States to give" a high and real priority to the ratification procedures and the transposition of the new rules into national legislation". TI also suggests that the OECD and Council of Europe Conventions be added to the list of conventions which are considered important for the EU's action programme and whose implementation is therefore monitored regularly. TI starts by summarising the present legal situation:
1. The EU's own action. TI especially: - regrets that certain important conventions such as the Convention of July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (and protocols) as well as the Convention of May 1997 on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of the Member States of the EU have only been ratified by "a very limited number of Member States"; - it congratulates itself on the recognition by the EU of the importance attached to combating private sector corruption at international level, and trusts that the Joint Action adopted by the Council in December 1998 (which does not need ratification) will be effectively transposed into national legislation within the foreseen period of 2 to 3 years; - welcomes the establishment by the Tamper Summit of the Eurojust unit and supports the proposal of the Committee of Independent Experts on Reform of the Commission that a European Public Prosecutor (Transparency International notes that the "Dehaene Report" suggests that Member States should give due consideration to this proposal and urges the Commission to support this plan).
2. The OECD Convention of November 1997 on combating bribery of foreign public official in international business transactions. The Convention came into force last February, but TI reminds that eight Member States must still complete ratification procedures and transposition into national legislation.
3. The Council of Europe Conventions. TI underlines that the Criminal Law Convention and the Civil Law Convention on Corruption adopted by the Council of Europe (that have the advantage of including Central and Eastern Europe as well as Russia) provides for the protection of "whistleblowers", and asks the EU Member States that have not ratified it to so "rapidly".
Then Transparency International makes a series of concrete suggestions regarding:
- The protection of "whistleblowers", who feel that they have to reveal the existence of financial abuses and, in particular, cases of corruption. TI believes that the initiatives to be taken in this context should, essentially, encourage these people to reveal these problems within their company or administration, but also plan, if the organisation in question has not taken any measures, "safe and accepted" routes should be provided to address information outside the organisation. According to TI, the Commission should compare the "best practices" in this area, or commission a study to this effect.
- The tax deductibility of bribes, which was common practice in most Member States and which "weakened substantially our credibility in dealings with developing and transition countries", has now been or will be abolished, "as a logical consequence of criminalisation or transborder". TI asks the Commission to raise the issue with the Member states to make sure that al of them have definitely abolished tax deductibility of bribes.
- Public procurement Directives. The idea (quoted in the Commission communication of 11 March 1998 on "Public Procurement in the EU") to ask the people concerned to accept "no-bribery pledges" is very close to the Integrity Pact concept which TI has developed and which is now being applied or under serious consideration in several countries including Argentina, Colombia, Panama and Benin." According to Transparency International, it will be necessary to consider applying the concept within the EU (which has been welcomed by a number of global industrial companies) and also "ethical clauses" contained in the Manual of Procedural Rules recently adopted by the Commission. TI believes that the most effective sanction usually is the "blacklisting" of companies that have violated the non-bribery rules.
- "Blacklisting". In underlining that the World Bank applies this system, TI suggests the: adoption of a system which would apply to all areas in which "Community finances are at risk" (rules already existed, but apparently nothing prevents a company that has been excluded for corruption in a sector of apply for contracts in another part of the Community budget); extend the system to the EU and the Member States. According to TI, firstly insure that, at a Community level "Blacklisting" is possible in all sectors and then apply the system to the whole EU, starting with the implementation of a central information system.
- The automatic recourse to auditors to detect fraud and corruption. The European Commission should support concrete projects by professional organisations in this sector and establish" at least a monitoring system which would allow the EU authorities to asses progress made under self-regulation and to determine whether at any moment additional regulatory measures are needed.
- Export credit insurance. According to TI, the competent organisations in this sector should reinforce their rules to better detect corruption and refuse, in certain cases, to bail them out. TI reminds that it presented the Commission two documents on this aspect (one in February and the other in September 1999) and while waiting for the Commission to take a position and make proposals to the Council. Transparency International adds that "the problem we raise is indeed one of trade policy, an area in which one expects the EU to act in common" and that a "Common position" by the EU would certainly have "a significant impact" on the work carried out in the sector of the OECD.
- Foreign aid programmes. TI reminded that she presented in November 1995 a memorandum which contains a relatively detailed chapter on "how to prevent corruption in the context of financial and technical co-operation with Southern and Eastern Countries", and notes that the European Commission has taken up some of the suggestions in its May 1997 document. TI in particular examines the following aspects: a) the "good governance", with is "one of the essential prerequisites for development". TI asks the EU to underline this concept not only in the negotiations on the "post-Lome", but also in all the future development agreements with third countries, and also asks that the "transparent and accountable management of resources" become one of the "key indicators" of the results obtained in destination countries and, finally, for the allocation of aid; b) The anti-corruption programmes. The EU started allocating resources to this type of measure (seminars, civic education, technical assistance in view of editing anti-corruption legislation, etc.), "by sometime asking for the support of TI" notes the memorandum. Transparency International recommends "systematising this approach" by installing "National Integrity Systems" who should be monitored by civil society; c) the rules applying to public procurement and contracts in the external aid programmes. The memorandum notes that TI had attracted the attention on the striking differences that exist in this field, that it relates to co-operation with the ACP, MED, ALA, PHARE, TACIS and suggest a harmonisation of the rules "at a higher level". TI recognises that the progress has largely been made due to the creation, at the European Commission, of the Common Service Reflex (CSR). Furthermore, this suggests that the "Manual of Procedural Rules", which have since been approved by the Commission are applied as quickly as possible to the procedures concerning all the third countries.
