EU stalls on corruption rules

Date: 06/02/1997

By Mark Turner

THE prospects of agreement on EU-wide rules to stamp out corruption are as far off as ever, despite new moves within the Council of Europe to tackle the problem.

The Strasbourg-based Council recently agreed its first international anti-corruption campaign targeting vote buying, improper financing and misbehaviour by public officials abroad.

Over the next three years, a multi-disciplinary group will draft a number of international conventions which will give its members common ground on which to stamp out corruption.

It will also establish a European code of conduct for public officials, undertake a comparative study of national laws to combat 'influence trading' and promote a series of projects aimed at sharing experiences between national experts.

Such moves reflect a growing belief that if official misconduct is not curbed now, the bond of trust between governments and citizens may be stretched too far.

The string of scandals which has recently rocked Belgium is just the tip of an iceberg of political malaise growing throughout Europe.

But, as is becoming a standard feature of EU judicial cooperation, Union governments disagree over what role the European Court of Justice should have in any action agreed by the 15 member states.

EU justice ministries are currently negotiating Italian proposals for a corruption convention closely modelled on a protocol to the fraud convention agreed in Dublin last year.

But while corruption affecting the Union's financial interests clearly requires a European-level legal response (involving the ECJ), the UK does not believe that the same applies to a more wide-ranging instrument.

If agreed, the convention would require member states to criminalise all attempts to bribe EU officials.

“As the law stands, not only can German companies bribe a French official, but they can also claim tax relief for it,” explained an official.

But at their last formal meet-ing in November 1996, ministers failed to agree on a presidency compromise which would have given the ECJ immediate competence over disputes between member states, leaving the question of preliminary rulings - a kind of 'first opinion' - until the end of the Intergovernmental Conference.

The UK opposed any involvement by the ECJ, while others demanded mandatory competence for the Court over all matters.

Disagreements over the ECJ have hitherto been solved by the creation of a special protocol under which member states have the option of accepting or rejecting its jurisdiction.

But although this formula freed the way for Europol fraud and customs information system conventions, diplomats do not think it will work in this case.