How Far Will the Shockwave Caused by the Corruption Scandal in the European Parliament Go?

In December 2022, the European Parliament was shaken. The Greek Vice-President of the European Parliament and three other individuals (a former Member of the European Parliament who founded a non-profit organisation “against impunity and for transitional justice", a parliamentary assistant and a lobbyist) were charged with bribery and money laundering by a Belgian judge in charge of a federal investigation opened in mid-July 2022 relating to the activities of an alleged criminal organisation infiltrating the European Parliament. Three of the individuals charged have been in pre-trial custody in Brussels since 9 December 2022. According to the Belgian Federal Prosecutor's Office, the aim of the alleged bribers would have been to "influence economic and political decisions of the European Parliament" in favour of two Arab states.

It is indeed the Belgian Public Prosecutor's office that is working on this case, which does not fall within the European Public Prosecutor's Office’s (EPPO) jurisdiction. The EPPO’s jurisdiction is limited to the protection of the financial interests of the European Union. In this case, the alleged corruption pact did not specifically target EU resources or expenditure. When the prosecuted offence, such as bribery, pursues an objective that is not directly financial, such as obtaining political support or adopting European standards favourable to the bribers, it does not fall within the scope of the EPPO’s jurisdiction. In contrast, on 15 December 2022, the EPPO requested the lifting of the parliamentary immunity of two Members of the European Parliament (including the above-mentioned Vice-President) in a distinct case involving suspected fraud in the remuneration of accredited parliamentary assistants to the detriment of the European Union’s budget, following a report of the European Anti-Fraud Office, its investigative body. EU expenditure was directly concerned in this case.

In January 2023, the former Member of the European Parliament’s lawyer announced that his client had reached an agreement with the Belgian Federal Prosecutor's Office. He acknowledged his participation in "a criminal organisation" and that he was "an active corrupter". In return for his repentance, a sentence of five years of imprisonment will be pronounced, including a suspended sentence for the part exceeding one year, along with a substantial fine (the amount of which was not indicated). He accepted the status of repentant, which obliges him to inform investigators of financial arrangements that would have concluded with third states and to report the identity of other beneficiaries or bribes.

This deal, which corresponds to a premium for confession, provoked several reactions from magistrates and lawyers in France, where such an agreement could not have been reached. Indeed, Article 433-2-1 of the French Penal Code states that the imprisonment sentence incurred by the perpetrator or the accomplice in the offence of bribery shall be reduced by half if, having notified the administrative or the judicial authority, they have enabled the offence to be brought to an end or the other perpetrators or accomplices to be identified. On the one hand, the person being prosecuted is required to have taken the initiative to inform the judicial authority, which is very rare in practice and was not the case in Belgium, where the investigation concerned a flagrant offence as a sum of EUR600,000 in cash would have been found at the former parliamentarian’s home in Brussels. On the other hand, such provisions are rarely applied in practice as the status of repentant is only granted by the court at the time of the hearing on the merits, and such delay results in insufficient security for a person who plans to collaborate with the French judicial authority. Alternatively, there is an “appearance pursuant to a prior admission of guilt” procedure, but this also implies the intervention of a homologation judge and not solely the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, this case could raise the question of the need to modify the French system to allow the Public Prosecutor's Office to conclude such a deal. However, it currently seems unlikely that the legislature (in line with public opinion) would be in favour of this reform, which would involve a collective reflection on the place of leniency regimes in criminal proceedings, respect of the rights of the defence and equality before the law.

This bribery case could also lead to new legal developments at the European level. Indeed, despite the young age of the EPPO, which commenced its activity in June 2022, it can already be envisaged that its scope may be extended to take into consideration cases where EU representatives or public servants are involved in corruption offences against the interests and values of the European Union. Questions may be raised by the fact that Belgian jurisdiction takes precedence as the sole location of the facts despite none of the participants in corruption seeming at this stage to be Belgian nationals.

The President of the European Parliament pledged to adopt new control and vigilance measures in order to strengthen preventive measures to ensure the integrity of the parliamentarians. She also expressed her support for the creation of a European Transparency and Ethics Authority, which was already the subject of a European Parliament resolution in September 2021. This new authority would replace the existing ethics committees or equivalents in certain EU institutions, such as the Commission, and be in charge of monitoring the effective application of the 2021 transparency register and the code of conduct. Without an immediate and strong reaction from the institutions, this scandal could further erode the EU citizens’ trust in their elected representatives, shortly before the next EU elections take place in 2024. Fighting against corruption and building trust are inseparable concerns.