EU institutions ‘vulnerable to corruption’ Transparency International report says the EU is vulnerable to corruption, but not to the extent that the public believes.

European Union institutions are vulnerable to corruption because of loopholes and poor enforcement of regulations, according to a report released today (24 April) by the NGO Transparency International.

A recent survey by Eurobarometer found that 70% of citizens believe that corruption is present in the EU institutions. This compares to 80% who believe it is present in their national institutions.

The report concludes that while corruption is not endemic in the EU institutions, the systems in place to control it lack substance. “The EU institutions have done a lot to put their house in order in recent years but strong foundations are being undermined by complex rules, complacency, and a lack of follow-up,” said Carl Dolan, director of the Transparency International EU Office.

The assessment, the first of its kind, looked at the three main EU institutions – the European Commission, European Parliament and European Council – as well as the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Auditors, and the European Anti-Fraud Office.

Major flaws were identified in all three main institutions – including the absence of mandatory lobbying rules, the growing trend of drawing up laws behind closed doors, and the ‘revolving door’ of EU lawmakers immediately entering lobbying or public affairs organisations. There are not effective mechanisms to protect internal whistle-blowers, and there is no comprehensive verification of the assets declared by European commissioners or MEPs.

The assessment also concludes that improvements are needed in the EU’s ‘debarment’ system, which excludes specific individuals or companies from receiving EU funds. The assessment concludes that a European Public Prosecutor’s office should be established with broad powers to tackle cross-border corruption.

Not all institutions co-operated with the Transparency International investigation. According to the organisation, requests for interviews in July 2013 were followed by a seven-month silence. The Parliament’s bureau eventually issued a response saying that it would not participate because the Parliament had adequate internal resources to monitor corruption.

Authors: