EU without corruption

No country is immune to corruption, and the European Union is no exception. But the Union has built, step by step, a set of tools that go beyond what any single Member State can do alone: a European prosecutor, common criminal law, monitoring of the rule of law, and rules that tie EU money to respect for it.

Why does the EU matter here? Because corruption crosses borders. A VAT scheme can use companies in several countries, EU funds are spent through national and regional authorities, and a single market means that a firm that wins contracts by bribery in one country competes unfairly everywhere. Fighting it only at national level leaves gaps that criminals exploit.

The need is real. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2025 found that the average score for Western Europe and the EU fell from 66 to 64, and that progress has stalled over the past decade, even though the region remains the least corrupt in the world. The question is not whether the EU has a problem, but whether its tools are strong enough, and used well enough, to solve it.

This page explains what exists, what is new, and what is still missing.

Several EU bodies deal with corruption and fraud, each with a different role, and it helps to know who does what.

• European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Investigates and prosecutes crimes against the EU’s financial interests, such as fraud with EU funds, corruption harming EU money and cross-border VAT fraud, in participating Member States.
• European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Carries out administrative investigations into fraud and serious irregularities affecting EU funds and into serious misconduct in EU institutions, and passes on to EPPO any criminal conduct within its competence.
• European Commission. Proposes laws, monitors how Member States apply them, publishes the Rule of Law Report and can use the conditionality regulation to protect the budget.
• European Court of Auditors. An independent auditor that checks how EU money is collected and spent and reports on weaknesses.
• European Parliament and Council. Adopt EU legislation, including the anti-corruption directive, and approve the budget.
• National authorities. Police, prosecutors, courts and anti-corruption agencies, which handle most corruption cases and also implement EU rules.

This division of labour is a strength, since different bodies can look at the same problem from different angles. It can also be a weakness if bodies do not share information or if responsibilities overlap. That is one reason the planned EU network against corruption matters.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is the biggest change in how the EU enforces the law against fraud. It is an independent body, based in Luxembourg, that investigates and prosecutes crimes against the EU’s financial interests in the participating Member States: fraud with EU funds, corruption that harms EU money, money laundering and serious cross-border VAT fraud. It started work in June 2021, and cases are brought before national courts.

Its 2025 annual report shows both the scale of the problem and the growth of enforcement. At the end of the year EPPO had 3,602 active investigations, with estimated damage of EUR 67.27 billion, almost three times the figure for the year before. It opened 2,030 new cases, filed 275 indictments against 1,438 people, and reported a conviction rate close to 95% in cases that reached judgment. Freezing orders worth EUR 1.13 billion were granted.

These numbers should be read with care. “Estimated damage” is a preliminary assessment, not a finding of guilt. Still, the figures show that a European prosecutor can pursue schemes that national authorities, each looking at its own territory, might miss.

For a long time EU rules on criminal corruption were fragmented and covered only parts of the problem. This is changing. Directive (EU) 2026/1021 on combating corruption was published in the Official Journal on 11 May 2026. It harmonises the definitions of corruption offences and sets minimum rules on penalties across the Union.

It covers bribery in the public and private sector, misappropriation, trading in influence, the abuse of public functions, obstruction of justice, illicit enrichment from corruption and the concealment of its proceeds. For individuals, the offences carry maximum prison sentences of at least three to five years, depending on the offence. Companies can be held liable, and the directive encourages prevention, including functioning compliance programmes.

It also asks Member States to adopt national anti-corruption strategies and to take preventive steps. Member States have until 1 June 2028 to bring the main provisions into national law, and until 1 June 2029 for strategies. In practice this means the effects will not be visible overnight. A law on paper is only as good as its enforcement.

The European Commission is preparing the first EU Anti-Corruption Strategy, planned for adoption at the end of 2026. It is also setting up an EU network against corruption, intended to bring together law enforcement, authorities, civil society and other stakeholders, in order to identify the areas at highest risk and coordinate action.

Monitoring is already part of the system. Each year the Commission’s Rule of Law Report assesses every Member State, including how it fights corruption: its institutions, laws, prosecutions and transparency. Eurobarometer surveys track how citizens and businesses perceive the problem. This evidence is what makes comparison, pressure and reform possible, and it is the kind of information the EU Funds Corruption Controller aims to make accessible.

The EU can also use its budget. Since 2021, the conditionality regulation (Regulation (EU) 2020/2092) allows the Union to suspend or reduce payments when breaches of the rule of law in a Member State affect, or seriously risk affecting, the sound management of EU funds or their protection.

It has been used. In December 2022 the Council decided, on a Commission proposal, to suspend 55% of the budgetary commitments of three cohesion programmes in Hungary, about EUR 6.3 billion, because of concerns about public procurement, conflicts of interest and the effectiveness of anti-corruption safeguards. The mechanism is controversial and slow, but it signals that access to EU money is linked to how it is protected.

Despite all the EU instruments, most of the daily work against corruption is done in the Member States. They investigate most cases, run the courts, spend most EU money and decide how independent their prosecutors and judges are. An EU rule is only as strong as the national institution that applies it.

This is why the same laws can produce very different results. A country with independent prosecutors, a free press and transparent procurement is likely to detect and punish corruption more often than one where these safeguards are weak. The Union can set standards, monitor, offer funding and, in the end, withhold money, but it cannot replace the political will of national governments and the pressure of national voters.

It would be a mistake to see the picture as finished. Several gaps remain.

• Enforcement still depends on Member States. The 2024 Eurobarometer found that 65% of Europeans believe high-level corruption cases are not sufficiently pursued, and that 75% see business and politics as too closely linked.
• New law takes time. The anti-corruption directive must be transposed by 2028, and the strategy is still being drawn up.
• Protection of whistleblowers varies. The Whistleblower Directive sets minimum standards, but practice differs from one country to another.
• Countries are far apart. The 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index ranges from 89 for Denmark to 40 for Bulgaria and Hungary, and the EU average is declining.
• Civil society needs space. Transparency International found that, globally, most countries with significant declines in their scores had also seen civic space shrink. Free media, independent courts and active citizens are what bring corruption to light.

You do not have to be an official to contribute. Stay informed: follow the cases and reports on the Monitor, and check the sources behind them. Use public data, such as procurement portals, company registers and asset declarations, where they are available. Ask the people you vote for how they intend to protect public money, and support independent media and civil society organisations that investigate.

If you see something that worries you, learn the warning signs on our page How to spot corruption, and, if you decide to act, read Reporting corruption without fear first.