Combating corruption

18.3.2026 A9-0048/222

Amendment 222

Mariusz Kamiński

on behalf of the ECR Group

Report A9-0048/2024

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle

Combating corruption

(COM(2023)0234 – C9-0162/2023 – 2023/0135(COD))

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) Corruption feeds off the motivation for undue economic and other advantages. Ìn order to reduce the incentive for individuals and criminal organisations to commit new criminal acts and deter individuals from consenting to becoming fake property owners enrichment by corruption offences should be criminalised. This should, in turn, complicate the concealment of illicitly acquired property and reduce the spread of corruption as well as the damage done to society. Transparency helps competent authorities to detect possible illicit enrichment. For example, in jurisdictions where public officials are required to declare their assets at regular intervals, including when taking up and completing duties, authorities can assess whether the declared assets correspond to declared incomes.

(15) Corruption feeds off the motivation for undue economic and other advantages. Ìn order to reduce the incentive for individuals and criminal organisations to commit new criminal acts and deter individuals from consenting to becoming fake property owners enrichment by corruption offences should be criminalised. This should, in turn, complicate the concealment of illicitly acquired property and reduce the spread of corruption as well as the damage done to society. Transparency helps competent authorities to detect possible illicit enrichment. Public officials shall be required to declare their assets at regular intervals, including when taking up and completing duties, authorities can assess whether the declared assets correspond to declared incomes. Declarations of assets by both national and Union officials shall be publicly available, subject to verification and made under criminal sanctions.

Or. en

Justification

Asset declarations are a key tool for safeguarding integrity in public life, as they enhance transparency and help detect illicit enrichment, money laundering and conflicts of interest. They enable oversight bodies and the public to more effectively prevent corruption, thereby strengthening trust in government and its officials. Making core preventive tools that are already in place in all Member States, such as asset declarations, mandatory, ensures the legal effectiveness and coherence. If such measures had been in place, they could have prevented recently exposed scandals involving high-level EU and national officials.

18.3.2026 A9-0048/223

Amendment 223

Mariusz Kamiński

on behalf of the ECR Group

Report A9-0048/2024

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle

Combating corruption

(COM(2023)0234 – C9-0162/2023 – 2023/0135(COD))

Proposal for a directive

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) Given the mobility of perpetrators and proceeds stemming from criminal activities, as well as the complex cross-border investigations required to combat corruption, all Member States should establish their jurisdiction in order to enable the competent authorities to investigate and prosecute this crime in a sufficient wide range of cases. including when the offence is committed in whole or in part in its territory. As part of that obligation, Member States should ensure that jurisdiction is also established in situations where an offence is committed by means of information system used on their territory, whether or not that technology is based in their territory.

(26) Given, in particular, the mobility of certain perpetrators and proceeds stemming from criminal activities, as well as the complex cross-border investigations required to combat corruption, all Member States should establish their jurisdiction in order to enable the competent authorities to investigate and prosecute this crime effectively, including when the offence is committed in whole or in part in its territory, and when the offender is a national of that Member State or the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in the territory of that Member State. As part of that obligation, Member States should ensure that jurisdiction is also established in situations where an offence is committed by means of information system used on their territory, whether or not that technology is based in their territory.

Or. en

Justification

The Commission’s original proposal and Parliament’s mandate included three mandatory jurisdictional grounds, including when the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in a Member State. This approach was aligned with Article 7 of Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector, being replaced by the directive, which allows Member States to derogate only in limited circumstances. In the final text, the third ground of jurisdiction is no longer mandatory. The optional nature of jurisdiction in cases of foreign corruption undermines both legal certainty and the Union’s capacity to meet its international commitments, including those under UNCAC and the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. The lack of coherence within the Union creates opportunities for regulatory shopping and weakens the overall legal framework and effectiveness of anti-corruption enforcement. It also risks leaving the Union behind in the fight against foreign bribery, particularly in comparison with the US, thereby exposing the EU to justified criticism regarding the credibility of its anti-corruption commitments. The primary drivers of foreign corruption are not private individuals but large corporations operating internationally. The Union cannot claim to have clean hands at home while allowing them to be dirtied abroad. This call was already supported in numerous European Parliament documents during this term, most recently in paragraph 96 of the annual report on the implementation of the CFSP and this is the opportunity to fill it with legislative content. This amendment corresponds to the separate vote on art. 20 of the provisional agreement, with the aim of restoring the Commission’s proposal.

18.3.2026 A9-0048/224

Amendment 224

Mariusz Kamiński

on behalf of the ECR Group

Report A9-0048/2024

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle

Combating corruption

(COM(2023)0234 – C9-0162/2023 – 2023/0135(COD))

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall take appropriate action, such as information and awareness-raising campaigns and research and education programmes, to raise public awareness on the harmfulness of corruption and reduce the overall commission of corruption offences as well as the risk of corruption.

1. Member States shall take measures to ensure that preventive tools are in place, which SHALL include appropriate: access to information of public interest, rules for the disclosure and management of conflicts of interests in the public sector, measures to ensure transparency in the funding of candidatures for elected public officials and political parties, rules for asset declarations and verification of such declarations, interest declarations and regulation of revolving doors situations by national officials designated by national law, rules regarding failure to report substantial assets or interests, and rules regulating the interaction between the private and the public sector. Such measures shall also apply to Union officials.

Or. en

Justification

Justification: The exclusion of Union officials from the scope of preventive obligations raises serious concerns regarding both legal consistency and institutional credibility. In both the Commission’s proposal and EP’s mandate, those measures applied to public officials, which term includes also Union’s officials. The directive replaces the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities and therefore is the right place to impose such obligations on the EU officials. Moreover, the directive introduces in Article 2 a definition of ‘Union officials’, yet it does not refer to this category anywhere in the text! The current text applies key integrity rules exclusively to national officials. This creates an unjustified asymmetry whereby EU institutions impose obligations on Member States while exempting themselves. Such exclusion is particularly problematic in light of recent scandals that have exposed vulnerabilities within the EU’s own institutional framework. Applying these standards to Union officials is necessary to ensure equal treatment. It also responds to repeated calls from the European Parliament for binding integrity rules in EU institutions .

18.3.2026 A9-0048/225

Amendment 225

Mariusz Kamiński

on behalf of the ECR Group

Report A9-0048/2024

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle

Combating corruption

(COM(2023)0234 – C9-0162/2023 – 2023/0135(COD))

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that one or several bodies, or organisation units specialised in the prevention of corruption is or are in place.

1. To advance the fight against corruption on a common basis, Member States shall ensure that one or several bodies, or organisational units specialised in the prevention of corruption is or are in place and possess the necessary expertise to fight against corruption. The tasks of such bodies or organisational units may include, as appropriate:

(a) the assessment of asset declarations of national officials, as designated by national law;

(b) monitoring compliance with transparency rules applicable to national officials and public entities;

(c) monitoring compliance with the statutory provisions and rules related to conflicts of interests in the public sectors;

(d) identifying sectors or occupations most at risk of corruption;

(e) cooperation with competent authorities, bodies or organisational units tasked with the repression of corruption.

Or. en

Justification

The Commission proposal and the Parliament's mandate have the reference to the specialised bodies but in the provisional agreement it was replaced with "tasked with". This amendment aims to restore the obligatory specialisation, while keeping all other arrangements unchanged. It is impossible to effectively fight a complex crime such as corruption in the 21st century without specialised bodies. The removal of the reference to the specialisation of national anti-corruption bodies constitutes a substantive deviation from binding international standards and a regression in the Union’s legal and policy coherence. The lack of institutional specialisation directly undermines the directive’s core preventive and operational objectives. The presence of such bodies is a direct and unambiguous requirement under Article 36 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which has been ratified by all EU Member States. Likewise, Article 20 of the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, as well as GRECO’s Twenty Guiding Principles, reaffirm obligation, emphasising the need for institutional specialisation, functional independence, and adequate capacity. Specialised anti-corruption bodies are not only central to accession benchmarks, as seen in the EU’s dialogue with Ukraine and the Western Balkans, but also are critical indicators of institutional maturity and democratic accountability. As demonstrated a few months ago by public protests in defence of NABU and SAPO in Ukraine, as well as by recently uncovered high-level corruption scandals in Serbia, the independence and effective functioning of specialised anti-corruption institutions remain a matter of significant public concern. The requirement for such bodies, and the Union’s defence of their independence in candidate countries, must be matched by appropriate legal frameworks within the EU itself.

18.3.2026 A9-0048/226

Amendment 226

Mariusz Kamiński

on behalf of the ECR Group

Report A9-0048/2024

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle

Combating corruption

(COM(2023)0234 – C9-0162/2023 – 2023/0135(COD))

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that one or several bodies, or organisational units specialised in the repression of corruption is or are in place.

2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that one or several bodies, or organisational units specialised in the repression and investigation of corruption is or are in place.

Or. en

Justification

The removal of the reference to the specialisation of national anti-corruption bodies, as originally proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the European Parliament, constitutes a substantive deviation from binding international standards and a regression in the Union’s legal and policy coherence. Abandoning this requirement would send a political signal that would be seriously detrimental. This amendment, like AM 4, restores the requirement for the specialisation of anti-corruption bodies. Otherwise, under Article 4, the fight against corruption could be delegated to a local police unit merely tasked with corruption-related matters. The recitals themselves, as well as the requirement that this may involve one or several bodies, together with other options set out in the recitals, already grant Member States a wide margin of discretion. Therefore, maintaining the requirement of specialisation is necessary to ensure that art. 4 retains any substantive meaning.