30 June 2026 – Guest blog written by Transparency International Europe.
This year’s Europe Day, celebrated on May 9, was the first one that saw an attempt at harmonising the EU’s anti-corruption rules: the newly-passed Anti-Corruption Directive sets a minimum baseline for the criminalisation of corruption and anti-corruption enforcement across all Member States. But while lawmakers across the bloc will be celebrating another year of the European Union, we should not be cheering too early for the Anti-Corruption Directive.
The final product is (as is so common with EU legislation) the result of significant compromise after sustained pressure from Member States in the European Council, chiefly Italy and Germany. These national governments in the Council of the EU lobbied hard to have strong provisions in the European Parliament’s version removed or watered down, which left the final result with conspicuous holes. Italian representatives pushed to remove abuse of office as a criminal offence from the scope of the Directive—yet abuse of office is a textbook case of corruption. Germany was compelled to reject presenting national anti-corruption strategies, sought to water down the obligation to put in place strong and cost-effective tools to prevent corruption in the long term, and called for a limit on the data and statistics levied for anti-corruption offences.
The Directive is weak in other critical areas, too: victims of corruption are not granted sufficient rights, the Directive does little to require measures to actually prevent corruption, and it provides ample avenues for corporations to eschew liability. The Anti-Corruption Directive, while a timid step forward, looks very much like the lowest common denominator has been settled on at EU negotiations.
The Directive represents a significant step towards aligning the EU’s legal framework with the UNCAC’s criminalisation requirements by incorporating the core corruption-related offences required under the Convention. But it falls short of fully aligning with international anti-corruption standards. This means that it is not fully consistent with transparency requirements on conflicts of interest, lobbying, and political finance as set out in UNCAC CoSP Resolution 11/7.
So what does the Directive actually do? The EU now has minimum standards for corruption-related offences, which Member States are required to criminalise when these are committed intentionally. These offences include both active and passive bribery in the public and private sectors, misappropriation of entrusted assets, unlawful exercise of public functions, obstruction of justice, enrichment from corruption, and the concealment of illicit assets. Harmonised sanctions with penalties based on the gravity of the offence have also been laid down in law. The Directive further aligns limitation periods, tentatively strengthens preventive frameworks through national anti-corruption strategies and extends whistleblower protections to reports of corruption offences. Finally, it promotes enhanced coordination between national authorities and EU bodies—OLAF, Eurojust, Europol and the EPPO—to ensure more effective enforcement across the Union. These are important steps forward, but the disappointing reality is that the EU could have achieved so much more.
The European Parliament estimates that European countries lose an estimated €990 billion—almost a trillion euros—to corruption every year. Yet whether the Directive tangibly strengthens combatting corruption in the EU is now in Member States’ hands. EU countries have two years to transpose the Directive into national law and three years to adopt comprehensive national anti-corruption strategies. Of course, nothing is stopping Member States from adopting stronger anti-corruption rules than those set out in the Directive, and any Member State that is serious about cracking down on these crimes should show ambition and do so, including by building robust corporate liability frameworks, strengthening victims’ rights and avenues for NGO standing, improving transparency on political financing, conflicts of interest, and lobbying, as well as ensuring meaningful participation of civil society.
Europe day celebrates European harmony. But the EU’s Anti-Corruption Directive has shown the steep cost that follows when Member States simply agree on the bare minimum: letting corruption continue falling through the cracks that remain. To achieve the Directive’s stipulated goals, Member States may now therefore have to go it alone.
This won’t be possible without a strong civil society, which plays a critical role in monitoring national governments. Representatives on the ground will be able to evaluate national implementation of the Directive, as well as advocate for better laws at national level. And at European level, organisations like Transparency International EU work tirelessly to hold all of the European institutions accountable for the decisions they make for EU citizens. Both Member States and the EU itself would do well to remember that true harmony means embracing civil society, not ostracising it. Taken together, the EU, the Member States and its citizens have a true shot at eradicating corruption across the Union. They shouldn’t squander this chance—in the true spirit of Europe Day.
The views, opinions, and positions expressed in this guest post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or official stance of the Coalition.