25th Anniversary of GRECO

This year, the 25th Anniversary of the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) is celebrated. Since 2012, GRECO members have implemented more than 500 recommendations aimed at preventing corruption and promoting integrity among parliamentarians, judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and senior executives in central governments. These actions have included the creation of national anti-corruption strategies, the development of codes of conduct, the implementation of policies and procedures to manage conflicts of interest, the institutionalization of lobbying standards and asset declarations, the strengthening of freedom of information frameworks, and the advancement of protections for whistleblowers. As a result, member states have amended laws, adopted improved practices, and established or reformed institutions.

How Does GRECO's Evaluation Mechanism Work?

How is corruption addressed in Europe, and which body is responsible for this issue? The Council of Europe, the continent's leading human rights organization, established the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in 1999 to monitor the implementation of anti-corruption standards among its members. Based in Strasbourg, France, GRECO is dedicated to enhancing the capacity of its members to combat corruption, ensuring compliance with the standards and principles set by the Council of Europe.

Thus, GRECO monitors all its members equally through a dynamic process of mutual evaluation and peer pressure. This mechanism ensures strict observance of the principle of equal rights and obligations among its members. This monitoring comprises two procedures: a "horizontal" evaluation, where all members are assessed within an evaluation round, leading to recommendations aimed at promoting necessary legislative, institutional, and practical reforms; and a compliance procedure designed to evaluate the measures taken by its members to implement the recommendations.

As mentioned, GRECO operates in cycles known as evaluation rounds, each covering specific topics. For example, the first evaluation round (2000-2002) addressed the independence, specialization, and resources of national bodies dedicated to preventing and combating corruption, as well as the extent and scope of immunities for public officials. The second evaluation round (2003-2006) focused on the identification, seizure, and confiscation of the proceeds of corruption, the prevention and detection of corruption in public administration, and the prevention of the use of legal entities as shields for corruption. These evaluations are supported by instruments such as the Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS No. 191).

The third evaluation round (2007-2012) dealt with incriminations provided for in the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and the transparency of party financing. The fourth round (2012-2017) covered the prevention of corruption concerning parliamentarians, judges, and prosecutors. The fifth round, initiated in 2017, addresses the prevention of corruption and the promotion of integrity in central governments and law enforcement agencies, supported by Recommendation No. R (2000) 10 on codes of conduct for public officials.

The 6th evaluation round will start in 2025 and will focus on preventing corruption and promoting integrity at the subnational level, with anti-corruption/integrity strategies and risk assessments, integrity standards, codes of conduct/ethics, awareness-raising, conflicts of interest, prohibition or restriction of certain activities, declarations of assets, income, liabilities, and interests, transparency, access to information, participation and accountability, and the enforcement of integrity standards.

In practice, at the start of each evaluation round, GRECO adopts questionnaires with guidelines and a provisional schedule for the evaluations. Members designate up to five evaluators for each evaluation round. The profile of the evaluators is determined by the thematic scope of each evaluation round.

The GRECO Evaluation Process Follows Several Key Steps

The first step is an initial analysis, conducted by the Secretariat, of the situation in a member state based on the responses to the questionnaires. Then, an evaluation team, supported by a member of the Secretariat, conducts an on-site visit of up to five days, during which more information is gathered through high-level discussions with key national stakeholders and civil society representatives. Subsequently, the evaluation team members present their individual written contributions to the draft evaluation report, including proposals for recommendations. The Secretariat prepares a first draft of the evaluation report and submits it to the evaluation team for comments. After this process, the Secretariat prepares a second draft, which is sent to the member under evaluation for comments.

The Secretariat then consults the evaluation team on the comments made by the member. If the evaluators' opinions differ, a solution is negotiated; if necessary, a coordination meeting is organized between national representatives, the evaluation team, and the Secretariat. After sending a third draft to all GRECO members, it is examined by GRECO during its plenary meetings, and a revised draft with the changes required by the debate is prepared for a second reading before adoption by the plenary.

Finally, the adopted reports are published with the authorization of the evaluated country. A key component of the procedure is the Situation Report prepared by the member in question, which must be submitted 18 months after the adoption of the relevant evaluation report. Based on the Situation Report, a Compliance Report is prepared, assessing the level of implementation of each recommendation issued by GRECO in the evaluation report. The evaluation can lead to three possible conclusions: that a recommendation has been satisfactorily implemented, partially implemented, or not implemented.

Members must inform GRECO about the actions taken to address partially or not implemented recommendations within another 18 months. The additional information presented is evaluated by GRECO, leading to the adoption of an Addendum to the relevant compliance report, generally concluding the compliance procedure regarding the country in question.

Challenges and Opportunities of the European Union's Participation in GRECO

Joining the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) has been a requirement for European Union (EU) membership, so all Member States are part of it. However, the participation of the EU as an entity in GRECO has been discussed since 2003, when it was first proposed as an essential element of the EU's anti-corruption policy. The EU's ability to join GRECO was limited by its competencies in the anti-corruption field, a situation that changed with the Treaty of Lisbon. In 2010, the Stockholm Programme highlighted the importance of the EU's accession to GRECO. In 2011, the European Commission presented a report to the Council on the modalities of the EU's participation in GRECO, noting that observer status would be insufficient to influence evaluations and that active participation was needed. In 2012, the Commission proposed a two-phase approach: first, as a "full participant" and eventually as a full member. However, this proposal generated controversy, and several Member States preferred full membership from the start.

The principle of mutual evaluation is a key obstacle to the EU's full membership in GRECO, as it would mean that the EU would be subject to evaluation rounds. Despite the corruption risks identified in EU institutions, the Commission has expressed concerns about the adequacy of GRECO's evaluation mechanism, primarily designed for states and not for supranational organizations.

Despite these challenges, cooperation between the EU and GRECO has progressed. The first EU Anti-Corruption Report in 2014 promoted the implementation of GRECO's recommendations. The European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors have advocated for full EU membership in GRECO, highlighting the need to evaluate EU institutions with the same standards applied to Member States. In 2018, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers acknowledged that EU participation in GRECO would strengthen the coordination of anti-corruption policies in Europe, although it regretted the lack of significant progress. The European Commission has reaffirmed its commitment, and discussions on the details of such participation continue.

The EU's full membership in GRECO remains a pending issue, with the need to find a mechanism that respects the specificity of EU institutions. The EU's active participation in GRECO could significantly enhance the effectiveness of anti-corruption policies across the continent, responding to the high expectations of European citizens in this area.

Conclusion

Over the years, GRECO has proven to be an effective mechanism for evaluating and promoting anti-corruption reforms in its member states. One of the main strengths of GRECO's process is the precise definition of the scope of evaluations, with clear decisions on the relevance of certain topics and the careful formulation of key questions. These evaluations are based on identifiable and well-defined standards, ensuring a systematic and rigorous approach.

One of the most valuable lessons learned by GRECO is that first-hand information gathering during on-site visits is essential for the quality of evaluations. These visits are a valuable resource for the credibility of the process, as they allow evaluation teams to conduct thorough discussions with key national stakeholders (including civil society representatives), request additional information on-site, and clarify issues that are often confusing and controversial. On-site visits can also add value to the evaluation of legislation. Interpretation issues of certain legal concepts relevant to the crime of corruption (such as "undue advantage" or "breach of duty"), the resulting jurisprudence, and challenges in the correct application of the legislation under scrutiny cannot be adequately addressed without the opportunity to discuss these matters with local professionals.

We can also add that corruption poses a significant threat to the distribution and management of European Union (EU) funds. The presence of corruption related to these funds has been confirmed by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). For example, in GRECO's 2001 evaluation reports on Greece, it was noted that one of the most common forms of corruption was the bribery of public officials in exchange for their help in obtaining subsidies or aid from EU funds.

We can conclude our article by saying that European citizens have high expectations for stronger anti-corruption action from Europe. This was observed in the public consultation on the Stockholm Programme, where 88% of respondents expressed their desire for greater EU institution involvement in the fight against corruption.

#AntiCorruption #GRECO #Integrity #EU #Transparency #GoodGovernance #Accountability #PublicSectorReform #WhistleblowerProtection #CouncilOfEurope #Compliance

Council of Europe European Commission Transparency International OECD - OCDE UNODC