EU's Anti-corruption Practice

Anti-corruption cooperation among EU countries is regulated by many international treaties.

Like international cooperation in many fields, driven by opportunism, anti-corruption cooperation faces various game theory dilemmas, that is, a country may not act according to the rules that are most beneficial to the overall interests, but take actions that are beneficial to its vital interests. In order to avoid this problem and ensure the expected effect of international cooperation against corruption, on the one hand, strong political will and firm political will of partner countries are needed, on the other hand, perfect and binding international rules and mechanisms are needed to implement this political will and political will. Corruption is a social hazard, which has become the consensus of EU countries. At present, the anti-corruption cooperation of EU member States is mainly carried out under the following international legal frameworks: the Convention on Prohibition of Bribery of Foreign Officials in International Business Transactions 1997 formulated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption 1999 formulated by Council of Europe, the United Nations Convention against Corruption formulated by the United Nations in 2003, and the Anti-corruption Law on the Private Sector formulated by the EU in 2003. In the process of formulating these international conventions, countries have shown relatively clear political will to fight corruption. For example, the preface of the Criminal Law Convention against Corruption in Council of Europe emphasizes that "corruption threatens the rule of law, democracy and human rights, damages good governance, fairness and social justice, distorts competition, hinders economic development, and threatens the stability of democratic system and the moral foundation of society". In 20 10, the European Council issued the "Stockholm Plan", and EU countries * * * indicated that EU member States would continue to strengthen anti-corruption cooperation, and defined the areas and specific plans of cooperation. EU member states also attach great importance to anti-corruption work. For example, the British government formulated a detailed anti-corruption plan in 20 14.

The role of international anti-corruption law is mainly manifested in two aspects:

The first is to promote the unification of substantive legal rules in various countries. These laws define legal terms and concepts such as bribery, bribery, bribery of foreign officials, money laundering, accounting crimes, influence bribery, private sector corruption, corporate responsibility, and specialized anti-corruption agencies, and require countries to incorporate them into domestic laws, laying a solid foundation for cooperation between countries. In addition, it is worth mentioning that the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption of Council of Europe are more binding on EU countries than the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Many provisions of the latter are optional, involving many countries and facing difficulties in implementation. Therefore, the existence of regional anti-corruption conventions and rules is still necessary.

The second is to promote the construction of a sound cooperation mechanism. These laws have specific provisions on judicial assistance between countries, the establishment of "prosecute or extradite" rules, supervision of the implementation of conventions and dispute settlement mechanisms. It should be emphasized that in recent years, the EU has promulgated a series of laws and regulations in the field of criminal judicial cooperation, which are quite advanced in transnational investigation, evidence collection, arrest, recovery of criminal proceeds and execution of judgments. These laws and regulations are also applicable to transnational anti-corruption cooperation. Therefore, for EU countries, their anti-corruption international cooperation has broken through and surpassed the rules established in these early conventions. Of course, "Rome was not built in a day", and these conventions are still an important cornerstone of anti-corruption cooperation among EU countries. For example, the EU as a whole has joined the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption in Council of Europe.

Anti-corruption evaluation mechanism plays an important role in promoting anti-corruption cooperation.

Corruption may exist in all fields of society, so anti-corruption is a comprehensive social governance work. Accurately evaluating the implementation effect of social corruption and anti-corruption measures is an important way to promote international cooperation and decision-making against corruption. At present, in the EU, there are various evaluation mechanisms to undertake such a role. In order to supervise the implementation of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and Council of Europe respectively set up a working group on combating bribery in international business transactions and a national anti-corruption working group. The main responsibility of these institutions is to follow up and supervise the implementation of the Convention. One of the important ways of supervision is to require member States to submit regular implementation reports, which will be evaluated by the working group, draw conclusions and put forward suggestions for improvement. For example, the tracking and evaluation of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has entered the third stage. Taking Germany as an example, in 20 13, the anti-bribery working group of the German Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development submitted an implementation report, evaluated the implementation of Germany's previous stage recommendations, pointed out the shortcomings, and put forward further suggestions. The Anti-Bribery Working Group of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development will also issue an analysis report to evaluate the corruption situation and anti-corruption work in the field of international business transactions. For example, in February, 20 14, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development published the Overseas Bribery Report, and based on the data of 427 transnational corruption cases since the entry into force of the anti-corruption convention of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the transnational corruption was evaluated and analyzed. The National Anti-Corruption Working Group of Council of Europe also followed a similar working mechanism and conducted several rounds of follow-up evaluation.

In order to implement the Stockholm Plan, the European Commission put forward the idea of establishing an "EU anti-corruption report" system in the "Circular on EU anti-corruption work" submitted to the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Economic and Social Commission on 201. In this circular, the European Commission believes that corruption has caused losses of at least 654.38+02 billion euros in EU countries every year, and the anti-corruption work in various countries needs to be strengthened urgently. In fact, the EU anti-corruption reporting system is an index system, which reflects the corruption situation, achievements and shortcomings in anti-corruption in EU countries, and clarifies the problems that need to be solved, so as to supervise and promote the anti-corruption work in various countries. The report is published every two years. In 20 14, the European Commission issued the first EU anti-corruption report, which actually drew on and absorbed the corruption assessment mechanism of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and Council of Europe and some specific data, and the content was very detailed. For the first time, the report published the survey results of European public opinion polling agencies on European people's perceptions of corruption. For example, according to the survey, respondents in Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg and Sweden rarely use bribery to achieve certain goals. In Britain, only 5 out of115 people are expected to pay bribes, which is the lowest among European countries. However, respondents generally believe that corruption is widespread in their country (they may not have experienced corruption themselves), with an average ratio as high as 74%. In terms of bribery experience, respondents from Hungary, Slovenia and Poland have the most bribery experience, accounting for 13%, 14% and 15% respectively. On average, 26% of the respondents believe that bribery has affected their lives, and 67% of the respondents believe that political election funds are opaque and need supervision. The report also introduces the general situation of anti-corruption in EU countries from four aspects: political dimension, control mechanism, prevention, punishment and risk field, focusing on political election corruption, official property disclosure, interest conflict avoidance mechanism, operation effect of anti-corruption institutions, petty corruption, local corruption and overseas bribery. The report focuses on corruption in the field of government procurement, reflecting that government procurement corruption is considered by the European Union as the most serious corruption area faced by all member States. Finally, the report makes an overall analysis of the anti-corruption situation in member countries, points out the problems that need to be further solved and puts forward suggestions. For example, the EU suggested that Britain strengthen anti-corruption and bank responsibility supervision in the military field. For example, the EU pointed out that corruption is still a major challenge facing Italy, and suggested that Italy strengthen the construction of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, and so on.

In fact, the function of anti-corruption reporting and evaluation mechanism in promoting anti-corruption cooperation between countries is mainly reflected in that it combines vertical review, vertical supervision and overall coordination of international organizations with bilateral review, multilateral supervision and parallel pressure between governments to urge countries to abide by rules and carry out reforms to achieve common goals. In this process, by repeatedly reaffirming the political will against corruption and constantly following up the implementation of anti-corruption measures, international cooperation against corruption has embarked on the road of normalization, institutionalization and standardization.

▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊961

The rule of law is not only the best way of domestic governance, but also an important way of international governance. EU's cooperation in the field of criminal justice has basically achieved "depoliticization" and embarked on the road of "rule of law", creating a new situation of judicial cooperation between countries. Anti-corruption cooperation should ultimately be implemented in the mechanism of the rule of law. It is very critical that any dispute can be fully demonstrated, debated and decided through the rule of law and rational and peaceful judicial channels. For example, if a country's corruption suspect escapes, there should be clear, efficient and operable rules to pursue him, so as to avoid unnecessary delay, resource consumption and even diplomatic and political disputes.

At present, at the EU level, some organizations and departments are committed to promoting EU anti-corruption judicial cooperation. In addition to general judicial cooperation organizations such as Eurojust, Eurojust, Europol and the European Prosecutor's Office in preparation, there are also specialized organizations such as the European Anti-Corruption Partnership and the EU Anti-Corruption Liaison Network. These institutions play a more coordinating, communicating and organizing role. They promote international cooperation against corruption through "soft" measures such as holding meetings, setting standards, issuing operation manuals and providing judicial training. For example, the European Anti-Corruption Partnership and the European Union Anti-Corruption Liaison Network 20 12 jointly issued a standard manual for anti-corruption institutions, which put forward standardized suggestions for the construction of anti-corruption institutions in member countries, involving adhering to the principles of rule of law, independence and responsibility, maintaining honesty, fairness and closeness to the people, ensuring transparency and confidentiality, strengthening resource guarantee, strengthening personnel recruitment and vocational training, strengthening inter-agency and transnational cooperation, and adhering to the integrated path of preventing and combating corruption. According to Eurojust 20 14 annual report, corruption crime has become the focus and priority area of EU judicial cooperation. In 20 12, there were 30 cases of transnational anti-corruption judicial cooperation among member States, 52 cases in 20 13 and 55 cases in 20 14, and the data showed an increasing trend year by year. Among these requests for judicial cooperation, the main requesting countries include Spain, Greece, Croatia, Italy and Latvia, while the main requested countries are concentrated in Britain, Austria, Germany and the Netherlands.

Next, the author takes the case of Ilya v. Athens Court of Appeal as an example to illustrate the prospect of legalization of EU anti-corruption cooperation. Ilya was originally a judge of the Athens Court of First Instance, but she was dismissed in July 2005 for misconduct. A few days before she was fired, she left Greece for England and settled in England under a false identity. Ilya was investigated and accused by prosecutors in Greece (including corruption, abuse of power, money laundering, fraud, etc. ), and some minor crimes (dereliction of duty and hiding and escaping) were convicted in his absence. Greek prosecutors have issued five European arrest warrants to British prosecutors, demanding that the British judicial authorities arrest and hand over Ilya. The British prosecutor executed the relevant arrest warrant and arrested Ilya in May, 20 1 1. The British prosecutor transferred the case to Westminster Magistrate's Court for trial, and the presiding judge rejected Ilya's various defenses and approved the extradition decision. Illya refused to accept the ruling and appealed to the Administrative Division of the High Court of England. The Court of Appeal rejected Ilya's appeal and upheld the extradition decision. In this case, the British prosecutor appeared in court on behalf of the Greek prosecutor to support the arrest warrant request, and Ilya hired a lawyer and made many defenses. The main disputes in this case focus on the following aspects: whether the crime of dereliction of duty and the crime of hiding and escaping in the arrest warrant are extraditable crimes; Whether the felony of corruption involved in the arrest warrant is established; If Ilya is extradited to China, will he get a fair trial and fair treatment? In the trial of this case, it involves the application of the principle of double criminality and the evaluation of the human rights situation in the requesting country. Judging from the reasoning and results of the judgment, the British judicial department showed the greatest recognition and trust in the judicial judgment of Greece. As the crime of corruption is a clear area of cooperation in the judicial cooperation rules such as the Framework Decision on the Implementation of the European Uniform Arrest Warrant among EU Member States and its Transfer Procedure, and it is not subject to the review of the principle of double criminality, the British judiciary will not demonstrate whether Ilya's alleged corruption actually constitutes a crime in British law. In other words, the British prosecutor does not need to prove that the evidence submitted by the requesting country can prove that the suspect constitutes a crime beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, for crimes such as "dereliction of duty", due to the application of the principle of double criminality, the evidence submitted by the requesting country must be able to prove that the suspect also constitutes a crime in English law, so the standard of proof is different. In short, all kinds of disputes can be properly resolved through the rule of law.

Anti-corruption cooperation among EU countries shows that as an important and sensitive international governance work, anti-corruption needs firm political will, full political mutual trust, perfect international rules and sound enforcement mechanism, and equal attention should be paid to prevention and crackdown. In any case, it is necessary to establish an institutionalized and legal anti-corruption cooperation mechanism. Of course, anti-corruption judicial cooperation also puts forward higher requirements for the convergence of legal rules and the improvement of human rights judicial situation in various countries, which means that cooperation must be based on a certain system.