Following the conclusion of the trilogue negotiations on the EU Anti-Corruption Directive, ECR Shadow Rapporteur Mariusz Kamiński criticised the agreement as “far below what Europeans had been promised and expected.”

Mr Kamiński, founder and first head of the Polish Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, warned that the deal in many provisions represents a retreat from the standards set by the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the OECD, and fails to address the corruption scandals that continue to undermine trust in the EU institutions.

Mr Kamiński said:

“Europeans were told this directive would be a milestone. Instead, the trilogue delivered slogans rather than solutions. The Parliament, the Commission and the Council — have once again settled for a ‘business as usual’ approach, inserting into the directive provisions that already exist in national criminal codes. The text will not meaningfully strengthen the fight against corruption in Europe — including inside the EU institutions themselves.

“Despite repeated commitments, the agreement omits binding transparency rules for Commissioners, MEPs and senior EU officials. Proposals for mandatory asset declarations, lobbying transparency, conflict-of-interest safeguards, revolving-door restrictions and independent verification mechanisms were removed entirely.

“After Qatargate and fresh allegations involving Commissioner Reynders and former EEAS leadership, citizens expected strong integrity rules. Instead, the EU decided to exempt itself. Explaining to the public why EU officials are excluded from the most basic transparency obligations will be very difficult.”

Mr Kaminski highlighted that the text leans heavily on vague wording such as “undue influence” or “undue advantage,” creating uncertainty rather than clarity. Across key articles, obligations have been replaced by optional clauses.

“Instead of harmonising upwards, the directive harmonises downwards to the lowest standards in the Union, precisely the opposite of what citizens expect,” Mr Kamiński noted.

Another major weakness is the failure to require specialised, independent anti-corruption bodies, as mandated under the United Nations Convention against Corruption, the Council of Europe’s Criminal Law Convention and the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) guidelines.

The final compromise allows Member States to assign anti-corruption tasks to ordinary police structures, without safeguards against political interference. “How can we successfully combat corruption in the 21st century without specialization? This is a direct contradiction of international standards and deprives us of the only effective tools,” said Mr Kamiński.

“At a time when countries such as Slovakia are dismantling independent anti-corruption bodies and others like Poland plan to follow, the EU is sending the wrong signal, especially to Ukraine, which is being urged to protect its own specialised agencies, including the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office.”

The trilogue deal also weakens provisions on foreign bribery. Jurisdiction for prosecuting EU companies that bribe foreign officials has been made optional, despite international obligations.

Corporate sanctions have been diluted, allowing low flat fines and fragmented national approaches.

“This will encourage foreign shopping and leave European companies lagging behind global anti-corruption standards,” Mr Kamiński said.

For Mr Kamiński, the trilogue result represents a political retreat at a moment when the EU required credibility and resolve.

“When the moment came to act, the institutions stepped back. The EU has abandoned its ambitions in this regard” Mr Kamiński said.

“This directive will not close the gaps exposed by Qatargate, and it will not equip Europe to lead the fight against corruption.”

The text will now be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council for formal approval.