SANCTIONS

EU governments and the European Parliament have reached a provisional deal on the first EU-wide criminal law framework on corruption, setting common minimum rules on offences, penalties and prevention measures across the bloc.

The directive, agreed in trilogue on 2 December, is the centrepiece of the Commission’s 2023 anti-corruption package and comes after a succession of high-profile cases involving both national and EU-level figures.

Wider scope of corruption offences

The new directive for the first time consolidates public- and private-sector corruption into a single EU legal act. It requires all member states to criminalise a common list of conduct: bribery in both sectors, misappropriation, trading in influence, obstruction of justice, enrichment from corruption offences, concealment and certain serious forms of unlawful exercise of public functions.

Existing EU rules fully harmonised only bribery in limited contexts and relied on older instruments from 1997 and 2003 covering, respectively, corruption involving EU and national officials and bribery in the private sector. These will now be replaced by the new directive.

The text builds on international standards in the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), but goes further in some areas – for example by creating a specific offence of “enrichment from corruption offences”, which effectively targets self-laundering of corrupt proceeds.

Harmonisation with room for national discretion

The directive is based on Articles 83 and 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which allow the EU to set minimum rules on serious cross-border crime while leaving member states free to maintain or adopt stricter measures.

For natural persons, the law fixes minimum upper-limit prison sentences: depending on the offence, maximum terms must be at least three to five years. Member states may go beyond these levels and retain higher maxima already in place.

For companies and other legal persons, the directive obliges states to provide for criminal or equivalent liability and sets minimum ranges for maximum fines: between 3 and 5 per cent of worldwide turnover or at least €24–40 million, depending on the offence, again with the option for national law to be stricter.

Jurisdiction rules are also partly harmonised. Member states must prosecute offences committed on their territory or by their nationals. They may extend jurisdiction further, for example where an offence benefits a company established in their territory or targets their nationals or residents, but this remains optional.

Civil-society organisations and some MEPs have argued that, during negotiations, member states sought to preserve considerable leeway over institutional arrangements and investigative tools. The final compromise allows anti-corruption responsibilities to be assigned to existing police structures, rather than requiring fully specialised agencies, a point some critics say may limit independence in practice.

Enforcement, prevention and EU-level cooperation

Beyond offences and sanctions, the directive contains a set of preventive and enforcement obligations. Each member state will have to:

adopt and regularly update a national anti-corruption strategy, developed with civil society and relevant authorities;
put in place bodies or units tasked with preventing and repressing corruption, equipped with sufficient staff and resources and able to operate without undue interference;
raise public awareness about corruption risks and ensure transparency and accountability in public administration;
provide protection, support and assistance in criminal proceedings for persons who report offences or cooperate with competent authorities, building on the existing EU whistleblowing directive.

At EU level, the directive aims to strengthen operational cooperation between national authorities and bodies such as OLAF, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Europol and Eurojust. It also requires annual publication of harmonised corruption statistics, intended to support evidence-based policymaking and facilitate comparison between member states.

Coverage of EU-level and former officials

A key question in the negotiations has been whether the new rules bite at EU-level. The directive adopts a single definition of “public official”, expressly covering persons working in the institutions of the European Union, international organisations and national or international courts, as well as national officials.

By replacing the 1997 EU convention on corruption involving EU and national public officials, the new framework is designed to ensure that the same catalogue of criminal offences and sanctions applies when EU-institution staff, Commissioners or other Union officials are involved, subject to national jurisdiction and rules on immunities.

The text does not create a separate criminal category for “former public officials” or regulate “revolving doors” as such. Those questions remain largely governed by EU staff regulations and national ethics rules. However, many of the offences – notably trading in influence, misappropriation and enrichment from corruption offences – can apply where conduct is linked to a person’s previous public functions, and the directive emphasises that statutes of limitation and rules on lifting immunities should not impede complex, high-level cases.

The deal therefore sits against a backdrop of continuing pressure for stricter ethical regimes in Brussels, following the Qatargate affair and further investigations by Belgian and EU prosecutors into alleged bribery schemes and tender rigging, including recent accusations against former EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and other senior officials. All those concerned deny wrongdoing and are presumed innocent while proceedings continue.

Next steps

The provisional agreement must now be formally endorsed by the Parliament and the Council before publication in the EU’s Official Journal. Once in force, member states will have a transposition period to align their criminal codes, institutional structures and prevention frameworks with the minimum standards.

In practical terms, the directive will test how far an EU-level “common playbook” on corruption can improve cross-border investigations without displacing national choices on criminal policy. Its impact on corporate compliance and on the handling of cases involving high-ranking EU and national officials will depend on how rigorously governments implement the new rules and how actively prosecutors and EU bodies use the additional tools now being created.