BRUSSELS — In a recent development, EU lawmakers reached an agreement on the first comprehensive legislation aimed at combating corruption across the bloc. This decision follows a series of concessions made to provide member states with increased flexibility in enforcing the law.
Key features of the new anti-corruption law
The agreement, finalized on Tuesday evening, seeks to standardize the definitions of various offenses, establish minimum penalties, and implement preventive measures that will apply uniformly across EU member states. This legislation, which has been in negotiation for over two years, coincides with a significant corruption scandal that has recently come to light within an EU institution, shaking Brussels to its core.
While the law’s final version is significantly less stringent than the original proposal submitted by the European Commission in May 2023, as well as the more ambitious plans put forth by the European Parliament, it still represents a notable step forward. The current text incorporates considerably lower minimum penalties, numerous optional clauses, and language that allows countries to interpret the provisions in various ways.
“The Council didn’t want this bill,” stated Raquel García Hermida-van der Walle, the Parliament’s lead negotiator, emphasizing the resistance encountered in the legislative process. “They have been fighting every inch of terrain” as “they just don’t like to have to harmonize or set minimum standards on the field of criminal law.”
Contentious points and compromises
A major area of contention within the negotiations was the requirement for EU nations to recognize and penalize “abuse of office” offenses committed by public officials. This provision faced staunch opposition from Italy, where Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had abolished such a crime in 2024, as well as from Germany and the Netherlands.
Ultimately, negotiators reached a compromise by modifying the language of the law. The explicit reference to “abuse of office” was removed, instead mandating that EU countries must categorize as offenses “at least certain serious violations of the law in the performance of or failure to perform an act by a public official in the exercise of his functions.”
Despite the contentious nature of the negotiations, García expressed satisfaction with the outcome, noting that it provides a foundation for future efforts. Countries will have a two-year window to implement the new law, followed by an additional year to submit their national anti-corruption plans to the European Commission.
Greens MEP Daniel Freund hailed the legislation as a significant achievement, stating, “there will be a legal [basis] for the Commission to be a pain in the ass for whoever does not follow the rules.” He also pointed out that national courts could seek guidance from the EU’s highest court on corruption-related issues.
Chloé Ridel, a Socialist lawmaker involved in the legislative process, highlighted that the law now contains specific definitions for a range of corruption offenses that will be universally recognized by all EU member states, including “bribery in the public and private sector, misappropriation in the public and private sector, trading and influence, enrichment from corruption offenses, obstruction of justice, concealment, and incitement.”
David Casa, a negotiator from the center-right European People’s Party, acknowledged that the establishment of common definitions would enhance cross-border cooperation and praised the new reporting requirements aimed at improving the Commission’s oversight of member states’ anti-corruption efforts.
However, criticism has emerged regarding the perceived inadequacy of the bill. Nick Aïossa, chief of Transparency International EU, expressed concern that the agreement falls short of what is necessary to effectively combat corruption across all 27 member states. He noted that lobbying efforts had diluted the law’s potential impact.
Moreover, right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists MEP Mariusz Kamiński criticized the absence of requirements for countries to establish independent anti-corruption authorities. “How can we push Ukrainians to keep their anti-corruption office independent if we do not require the same inside the EU?” he questioned, highlighting the lack of stringent requirements for specialized and independent bodies.
Raquel García remarked that this legislative measure marks a preliminary step towards addressing corruption within the EU and indicated that future initiatives could include the establishment of an ethics body for EU public officials, a proposal that has stalled due to opposition from the right-wing majority in Parliament.
The European Commission plans to introduce a new anti-corruption strategy in early 2026, signaling ongoing efforts to strengthen the EU’s regulatory framework against corruption.