Historisches Fenster für Verschärfungen der Anti-Korruptionsb...

Pe
Sn
DIE GRÜNEN

STV. KLUBORMANN

 

Werner Bunker

Alle Artikel
Zur Biographie

werrer.kogler&gru,..

 

übernehmen :

1von?2

BUNDESLÄNDER ad
BILDUNGSWERKSTATT LU Pn NG ri es
BLOGPORTAL
MITMACHEN Partei Parlament Europa

06,04,2011 12:22

Historisches Fenster Fir Verschärtusgen der
Ad Korruplicnshostimmungen

"Die neu entflammte Bereitschaft der Regierungsparteien
zur Korruptionsbekämpfung sehen wir vorsichtig positiv.
Der Druck ist nun offenbar groß genug, die Öffentlichkeit
läßt sich mit 'Schmähführergesetzen' nicht mehr
abspeisen”, meinte unser stv. Klubobmann Werner Kogier
am Mittwoch in einer Pressekonferenz.

Justizsprecher Albert Steinhauser wifl in die
Parteienverhandlungen die Anti-Korruntionsarganisation
Transparency International (TI) einbinden,

Einen gewissen Spott über den medienwirksamen Eifer bei SPÖ
und ÖVP konnte sich Kogfer nicht verkneifen. "Wir sind von
Speerspitzen umzingelt", sagte er, bisher sel nur gemauert
worden. "Jetzt brechen die Mauern, aber aus einer brüchigen
Mauer ist noch selten eine Speerspitze geworden,"

Wir fordern volle Transpärenz für alle Arten von
Politikereinkünften nach dem Motto "für was, wie hoch und von
wer". Verstöße sollen strengen Sanktionen unterliegen, in
letzter Konsequenz sol! der Mandats- und Amtsverlust drohen,

"Bloß Placebo”

Bei der Abgeordnetenbestechung ist Österreich laut Steinhauser
“einer der hartnäckigsten Verweigerer seiner völkerrechtlichen
Verpflichtungen", Zwar wird zum Schein ihre Pflichtverletzung
schen jetzt geahndet, da dies aber einzig die Anwesenheit der
Abgeordneten betrifft, ist das bloß Placebo, Wir Grünen wollen
hier die Vorteilsannahme auch für Anträge, Anfragen, die
Blockade von Tagesordnungen oder die Beeinflussung von
Gesetzesverhandlungen ahnden.

Zurücknehmen sollte man aus Sicht von Steinhauser die
Entschärfungen bei den als "Anfüttern" bekannten wiederhalten
Geschenken an Amtsträger. Auch staatsnahe Unternehmen wie
die ÖBB, die ASFINAG oder der ORF, aber auch öffentlich-
rechtliche Kammern söllen aufgenommen werden.

Schließlich sieht Kogler auch bei den Regelungen für die
Parteifinanzen ein "historisches Fenster, dass mehr
herauskommen könnte". Wir Grünen wollen uns hier am
deutschen Modell orientieren, um Vorfeldorganisationen und
Porteistrukturen bis auf Gemeindeebene hinunter zu erfassen,

Kernpunkt für Korruptionsbestimmungen für
Abgeordnete

1. volle Transparenz für alle Arten von PolitikerInnen-
Einkünften

Alle Einkünfte und Nebeneinkünfte von Politikerinnen - auch
geidwerte Leistungen wie Urlaubseinladunger - müssen offen
gelegt werden. Verstöße gegen die Gffenfegungspflicht sollen
strengen Sanktionen unterliegen, Be] wiederholter Verletzung der
Offenlegungspflicht soll als letzte Konsequenz Mandats- oder
Amtsverlust drohen.

2. Abgeordnetenbestechung - keine Sonderrechte für
Mandatare

In Österreich haben bestechliche Abgeordnete keine Sanktionen
zu befürchten. Das hat auch die Affäre Strasser wieder gezeigt.
Wäre Strasser Nationalratsäbgeordneter, würden seinen
Aktivitäten keinerlei strafrechtliche Konsequenzen folgen.
Hintergrund ist der, dass im österreichischen Strafgesetzbuch die
Abgeordneten immer dann von der Strafbarkeit ausgenommen
sind, wenn es um Vorteilsannahme im Zusammenhang mit einer
pflichtgemäßen Vornahme eines Amtsgeschäftes geht {zB
Einbringen von Anfragen oder Anträgen). Bei der pflichtwidrigen
Vornahme von Amtsgeschäften unterliegen die Abgeürdneten
zwar dem Strafgesetzbuch, damit wurde jedach im Sommer
2009 ein reiner Scheintatbestand geschaffen. Zwar wurden
Abgeordnete in den Amtsträgerbegriff einbezogen, aber gleich
wieder mit einer Korruptionsprivileg ausgestattet, Abgeordnete
machen sich künftig nur strafbar, wenn sie gegen Geld ihr

unten Ä

http!//www.gruene.at/skandale/artikel/iesen/72148/

Mi, 29.02.2012 RSS Feed Login "Schriftgröße
ARTIKEL
GRÜNE THEMEN 7 4 Re u Such
H In Sur Kt uchen

Diese Seite ausdrucken

Diese Seite weiterversenden

\

 

Teilprogramme &

4
LORBYISTEN 7 f
si

 

  
 

Fer Stop Korruption!
Ihr Grasser, Strasser, Scheuch:
die Österreichische Politik
Fstonsl strotzt vor Korruptions-

u
urTION! skandalen - wir Grüne sehen
nicht tafenlos zu ...

  
 
  

»* Lebbyisten-Saubermachen in der
ÖVP-Europsdelegation muss
weitergehen!

» Pilz: Scharfe Kritik an Pröll wegen
Lobbyisten-Affäre

» Wir fordern Schüssel-Rücktritt
-"Atomlobbyisten raus aus dem
österreichischen Parlament"

* „Nach Veröffentlichung der „Sunday
Times”-Beweise ist Strasser für
Europaparlament untragbar”

* „Strasser-Rücktritt zeigt
Notwenrligkeit eines verbindlichen
Lobbyisten-Registers in
EU-Institutionen”

FErINSHE!

Grüner Anti-Korruptionsantrag im
Parlament, 31.3.2011 {PDF, 235.1 KB)

29.02.2012 10:18

Historisches Fenster für Verschärfungen der Anti-Korruptionsb...

2 von ?

Stimmverhalten verkaufen oder die Pflichten nach der
Nationalrats-Geschäftsordnung verletzten. Klingt gut - ist aber
harmtos. Die Abgeordneten haben nämlich nach &1lder
Geschäftsordnung nur eine Pflicht: die Anwesenheitspflicht,

Damit ist gesichert, dass kein österreichischer Abgeordneter
jemals verurteilt werden wird.

3. Verbotene Geschenke

Wiederhoite Geschenke an Amtsträger - im Fachjargon auch als
Tatbestand der „Anfütterung“ bezeichnet - schaffen
Abhängigkeiten. Bis zum Sommer 2009 war jede
Geschenkannahme durch Amtsträger im Hinblick auf die
Amtsführung strafbar. Ein konkreter Zusammenhang zwischen
Geschenkannahme und konkretern Amtsgeschäft war nicht
notwendig, Die diesbezüglichen Strafbestimmungen wurden
2009 bis zur Unkenntiichkeit entschärft. Die neue Regelung ist de
facto nicht vollziehbar. Es braucht ein wirksames Verbot für

Geschenkannahmen durch AmtströgerInnen nach internationalen
Standards.

4. Alle „Amtsträger" erfassen

Ausgenommen von diversen Strafrechtsbestimmungen für
Amtsträger sind staatsnıahe Unternehmen: Das betrifft zB Post,
ÖBB, ASFINAG, ORF, die öffentlich-rechtlichen Kammern und
zum Teil öffentliche Spitäler. Auch die Organe staatsnaher
Unternehmen müssen zukünftig in den Amtsträgerbegriff
integriert werden.

SEABDALL

SKANDALE .

Fülz ässt Vechiliche Schrlite gegen Oenurmedntken
Hockeager orufen

Peter Pilz - 17.02,2012 14:48

SKANDALE

Kor aplieswuman DW anıl DES haben meter denn ir
Alk Iosundae

Stefan Wallner - 16.02.2012 14:35

SKANDALE u
Sun ieungarnkeag U ÖDYi-Kilamser In Teiren- Affäre
Peter Pilz - 09.02.2012 09:44

STOPPTDIERECHTEN
zu BU che: Eindewif.e Klayskiltnng oder Klckirit
Karl Ötlinger = 31.01.2012 15:46

WEITERE THEMEN
SirschmSager nicht linger fengbar
Karl Öllinger - 30.01.2012 12:10

12345678910>

* Zurück zur Liste &
» RSS-Feed :

Zum Seitenanfang

 

Service Spenden
Multimedia Mitmachen
Mediathek
Programm
Presse grüne Themen
Impressum
Kontakt Bildungswerkstatt
Blog Portal
Tuerkce
u English
PARBERBSER Bosanski/ Hrvatski
/Srpski

Burgenland
Kärnten
Niederösterreich
Oberösterreich
Salzburg
Steiermark

Tirol

Vorarlberg

wien

10. Bundesland

http://www.gruene. at/skandale/artikel/lesen/’72148/

Suchen
facebook youtube
flickr delicious
myspace twitter

29.02.2012 10:18

The Fight against Corruption - A Priority for the CoE

von 1

www.coeint/greco

About GREIO

Meetings

Ewaluations

Dotumenrts

News flashes /
Press releases

Weh resources

i0th Anniversary
Cunference

Council of Europe

 

Historical Background

Strong political will

bady.

Several milestones have marked the development of this work since 1981, when the Co
against economic crime (including, inter alia, bribery) (Recommendation Na.PR (81)
member States (19th Conference, Valletta) agreed that corruption should be a
stability of democratic institutions. The Counci! of Europe, as the pre-eminent European
human rights, was called upon

With the creation of the Multidisciplinary Group on Corruption (GMC) in September 1994, under the responsibility of the European Commi
on Crime Problems (TDPC) and the European Committze on Legal Co-
one ofthe Council of Europe’s priorities.

 

Sana gais

 

http://www. coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/generali2. historical...

PS-HL portal Home Sitemap Contactus Restricted access

 

among Couneil of Europe member States has shaped the Organisation's work against corruption over more than
decade, leading to the adoption of a set of camprehensive standard selling instrumen

ts and the establishment of an effective manitoring

mmittee of Ministers recommended to take measures
12). In 1994 the Ministers of Justice of Council of Europe
ddressed at European level, as it Poses a serious threat te the
institution defending democracy, the rule of law and

to respond to the thrsat, The Ministers were convinced that an effective fight against corruption must take a
broad approach and recommended that a Multidisciplinary Group on Corruption {GMC} be set u

action against corruption and t9 examine the possibility of drafting legal instruments in th
elaborating a follow-up mechänism to implement the undertakings contained in them.

P to prepare a comprehensive programme of
is field, referring expressly to the importance of

 

aperation CDCI, the fight against corruption was firmly established as

In November 1996, the Committee of Ministers adöpted the Programme of Action against Corruption prepared by the GMC and set the
deadline for its implementation st 3i December 20N0. The Committee of Ministers weicomed in particular the planned elaberation of one or

more international conventions to combat

contained in them.

In June 1997, the Ministers of Justice of Council of Europe member States

Corruption and the Intention to foresee a follow-up mechanism to implement undertakings

(2ist Conference, Prague) expressed concern about naw trends in

modern criminality, in particular the organised, sophisticated and transnationat character of certain crimina| activities, Fighting organised
erine hecessarily inplied an adequate response to corruption. Moreover, the fact that corruption may endanger the stability of democratic
institutions and the moral foundatiors of society was also emphasised. Consequentiy, the Ministers recommended that efforts be intensified
to ensure early adoptlon of a criminal law convention providing for a co-ordinated criminalisation of corruption offences and for enhanced
cooperation in the prosecution of offencas. They further recommended to the Committee of Ministers that an effective follow-up mechanism,
open to member States and non-mermber States of the Council of Europe on an equal footing, be provided for.

In October 1997, the Heads of State and Government of the member States ofthe Couneil

af Europe (Second Summit, Strasbourg) decided

that common responses to the challenges posed by the growth in corruption and organised crime should be söought. They instructed the
Committee of Ministers to adapt guiding principles to be applied in the development of domestic legIslation and practice, to secure the rapid
completion of international !egai instruments Pursuant to the Programme of Action against Corruption and to establish without gelay an

appropriate and efficient mechanism for monitoring observance

instruments.

of the guiding principles and implementation of the relevant international

In November 1997, the Committee of Ministers (101st Session, Strasbourg} adopted Resolution (97) 24 on the twenty quiding principles for

the fight agsinst corruption and instructed the GMC to submit w
efficient mechanism for monitoring the observance and

instruments,

ithout delay a draft text proposing the establishment of an appropriate and
implementation of the Council of Furope’s anti-corruption standard setting

In March 1938, the GMC, having taken account of the opinions of the CDC)J and the CDPC, approved a draft Agreement establishing the
"Greup of States against Corruption - GRECO”. In May 1998, the Committee of Ministers (102nd Session, Strasbourg) authorised the

sstablishment of the "Group of States against Corru ption

- GRECO" in the form of an entarged partial agreement and on 1 May 1999, GRECO

was set up by the following 17 founding members : Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, Siovenia, Spain and Sweden, Since, its membership has grown considerably.

Valetta, 1994

Strasbourg, 1995

Strasbourg, 1996

Prague, 1997

Strasbourg, 1997

Strasbourg, 19993

Strasbourg, 2008

Strasbourg, 2003

MILESTONES
» 15th Conference of European Ministers of Justice: corruption to be addrassed at Zuropean lavel

k Establishment of the Multidisciplinary Group on Corruption

t Programme of Action against Corruption

t 21st Conference of Eurapsan Ministers of Justice: anti-corruption efforts to be intensified through standard
setting and monitoring

* 2nd Summitiof Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe member States: common
principles to prevent and combat corruption and organised crime are to be sought
+ Resolution (97) 24 on Twenty Sulding Principles agalnst Corruption

+ Establishment of GRECO on 1 May 1999
* Criminal Law Convention {ETS 173) and Civil Law Convention (ETS 174) on Corruptian opened for signature

* Recomm endation on Codes of Conduct for Public Officials (Recormmendation No. a {2000) 10}

+ Recommendabion on Common Rules against Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties and Electoral
Campalgns (Recommendation Rec{2003}4)
» Additional Protoco! to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 191) opened for signature

29.02.2012 11:16

COUNCIL  CONSEIL
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS _ OFEUROPE _ DEL'EUROPE

DIRECTORATE OF MONITORING

strasbourg, 1 April 2011 Greco (2011) 9E

Fourth Evaluation Round

Questionnaire on
Corruption Prevention in respect of
Members of Parliament, Judges and Prosecutors

Adopted by GRECO
at its 50” Plenary Meeting
(Strasbourg, 28 March - 1 April 2011)

 

 

Ssecretarlat du GRECO www .coe.int/greco GRECO Secretariat
Conseil de [!’Europe

Council of Europe
F-57075 Strasbourg Cedex = +33 388412000 Fax +33 388413955

INTRODUCTION

By choosing corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and
prosecutors as the theme for its Fourth Evaluation Round, GRECO is breaking new
ground and underlines the muitidisciplinary nature of its remit. At the same time this
theme has clear links with GRECO’s previous work, notably its Second Evaluation Round
which examined the executive branch of public administration. Focusing on corruption
prevention in respect of parliamentarians is a natural continuation of GRECO’s scrutiny of
political financing during the Third Evaluation Round and prevention of corruption
regarding judges (including lay judges) and prosecutors represents an in-depth follow-up

to a particularly important element of the First Evaluation Round, the independence of
the judiciary.

The questionnaire is divided into two parts: part A dealing with members of national
parliaments and part B dealing with judges and prosecutors, who are subject to national
laws and regulations. Both parts follow a similar structure with targeted questions under
specific headings. The first heading, “Background information”, which is common to both
parts, serves the purpose of generating fundamental input for obtaining an overall
understanding of the system in each country. Further headings, most of which are also
common to both parts, contain almost identical questions aimed at collating focused and
detailed information. A few questions are specific to part B, as they result from the
particular status and functions of judges and prosecutors.

Most headings and questions are self-explanatory and need no further clarification.
Where explanations are necessary, they are provided in footnotes. In light of the lessons
learned from GRECO’s Second Evaluation Round, and in order to cover the large variety
of situations likely to be encountered in member states, formal definitions for key
concepts such as “conflicts of interest” and "gifts” have not been established for the
purpose of the questionnaire, That said, in this context, respondents are invited to refer
to situations in which a member of parliament's, a judge’s or a prosecutor's financial or
other private interests appear to be at variance with or could be affected by his/her
official duties. Similarly, and again bearing in mind the approach adopted during the
Second Evaluation Round, the term “gift” should be understood in a broad sense covering
anything of monetary value, including cash, tangible iterns, hospitality, travel, etc.

The questionnaire is fairly detailed and requires precise answers, the purpose being to
generate reliable information in preparation for evaluation visits, However, the questions
asked do not pre-empt possible later conclusions by GRECO. The absence, in a given
country, of a feature referred to in the questionnaire (e.qg., a specific body entrusted with
the verification of declarations of interest) must not in all cases lead to a
recommendation to fill that “gap.” Such situations wil! need to be assessed in light of the

structure of the system as a whole and the particular problems and needs occurring in
the evaluated country.

A.

1

Corruption_ prevention in respect_of_members of
parliament

Background information

Parliamentary system

11

Please briefly describe your parliamentary system, päying attention to the following
issues:

a) whether the legislature in your country comprises one or two chambers (bi- or
unicameral parliament)';

b) the number of members of parliament;

c) whether members of parliament are elected through direct or indirect elections
or appointed;

d) the method of election (e.g., proportional representation, majority election) or
appointment;

e) whether due to the method of election or due to other factors,
parliamentarians are expected to represent the national public interest and/or
a particular interest (of, for example, their district or constituency or political
party);

f} why and how a member of parliament would lose his/her mandate.

Transparency of the legislative process

1.2

Plesse describe the measures in place as regards the transparency_of the legislative
process, providing the text of the relevant rules in English or French and/or
describing the relevant procedure(s). Indicate in particular:

a) how - and at what stage of the legislative process - draft laws are brought to
the attention ofthe public;

b} if, how and when public consultation on draft laws is carried out;

ce) the level of transparency of the composition and work of parliamentary
committees;

d) the level of transparency of parliamentary debates?;

e) if, how and when parliamentary votes are disciosed,

Remuneration and economic benefits

1.3

1.4

1.5

Please provide information on the average gross annual salary in your country,

Please provide information on the level _of remuneration members of parliament
receive for their work and indicate whether they are expected to work full-time or
part-time.,

What additional benefits, if any, (for example, special taxation regime, housing
benefits, etc.) are provided to members of parliament by the state? Indicate a) the
economic value of these benefits; b) whether information about their use is
disclosed to the public; c) whether they are still entitled to these benefits after their

term of office and d) how control is exerted over the legitimate use of these
benefits.

 

U If your country has a bicamera! parliament, plesse answer the following questions for both chambers of
parliament.

? For example, are debates always open to the public or do certain debates take place in camera, are debates
broadcast on tv or radio as a general! rule and are meeting reports accessible to the public?

1.6

2.1

2.2

3.1

4.1

Please specify whether the budget for a member of parliament’s office is provided
solely by public resources or whether his/her office budget may be supplemented
by external sources, including financial contributions and in-kind donations. If the
office budget is allowed to be supplemented by external sources, is the member

required to report the type and value of the supplementation (and if so, to
whom/what entity and is this report public)?

Ethical principles and rules of conduct

Please provide the full text, in English or French, of the ethical principles or core
values for parliament as a whole enshrined in the constitution or other laws,

Provide the full text of standards _of conduct, if any, applicable to members of
parliament, in English or French. Please give further details:

a) since when have they been in place?

b) who / what entity drafted these standards, who / what entity adopted them
and whether members of parliament were involved in the development of
these standards?

c) What are the measures in place to ensure compliance with these standards?

Conflicts of interest

Please describe the general rules and procedures in place concerning the prevention
and resolution - before they arise - of conflicts of interest of members of
parliament. Please indicate if these rules and procedures also apply to conflicts of
interest arising from the private interests or activities of others with whom the
member of parliament has a close association (relatives, business associates, etc.).

Provide the text of the relevant rules in English or French and comment in
particular on:

a) the definitions and/or typologies of conflicts of interest, if such
definitions/typologies are available;

b) the mechanisms aimed at preventing conflicts of interest;

c) the procedures for resolving conflicts of interest before they arise.

Prohibition or restriction of certain activities

Please provide the text of the relevant rules in English or French and describe the

measures in place, if any, prohibiting or restricting the possibility for members of
parliament to:

a) act in a particular case/matter in which they have a private interest;

b} accept gifts® (including the definition of gifts, possible value thresholds per
item/per donor/per year and the procedures for disposing of or returning
unacceptable gifts);

c) hold posts/functions or engage in accessory activities’ outside parliament
(including incompatibilities), whether in the private or public sector, whether
remunerated or not;

d) hold financial interests°;

e) enter, either directly or through a business interest, into contracts with state
authorities;

? Please da not include rules relating to the acceptance of gifts or in-kind donations accepted (and presumabiy
reported) for the purposes of supporting an election campaian.

* This includes consultancy, representation of third parties’ interests, inter alfa, in courts or other state bodies.

° Such ss shares in a company, bonds, notes or other financial instruments.

4.2

4.3

5.1

3.2

5,3

f) be employed in a certain position or sector after their term of office or engage
in other paid or non-paid activities after their term of office®;
g) have contacts with third parties who may try to influence their decisions’.

Please describe specific rules in place on the (mis)use of confidential information by

members of parliament. Provide the text of the relevant provisions in English or
French,

Please describe specific rules in place on the (mis)use of public resources by
members of parliament. Provide the text of the relevant provisions in English or
French.

Decliaration of assets, income, Habilities and interests

Please provide the text of the relevant rules in English or French and describe the

measures in place, if any, requiring members of _parliament_to_declare the
following:

a)  assets and the holding of financial interests®;

b) sources of income (earned income, income from investments, etc.);

c) liabilities (loans from others, debts owed to others, etc.);

d) gifts;

e) the holding of posts and functions or engagement in accessory activities (e.g.,
consultancy) outside parliament, whether in the private or public sector,
whether remunerated or not;

f} business contracts with state authorities;

9) offers of remunerated or non-remunerated activities (including employment,
consultancies, etc.) and agreements for future such activities;

h) any other interest or relationship that may or does create a conflict of
interest.

Please indicate for each of the items in the previous question:

a) if the information to be declared is also required for a member of parliament’s
family members and/or relatives, and who is to be considered a family
member/relative for this purpose;

b) when declarations are required and what time period they cover;

€) if - apart from possible general (regular) declarations - declarations must
also be made on an ad hoc basis if a member of parliament has an interest in
a matter that is before the legislature or one of its committees;

d) to whom / what body the information is to be deciared;

e) if a register is kept of the declarations - both as regards ad hoc and regular
declarations - and, if so, what information is contained in this register;

f} if the declarations are made public and in which way.

If there are no specific written rules concerning the declarations referred to in
question 5.1, please describe whether unwritten rules (conventional rules, standing
practices etc.) for this purpose exist and how they are applied.

& This includes any agreement or arrangement to return to the position they held in the private sector prior to
their term as a member of parliament or to the same employer in another position,

? This includes rules on impartiality and rules that address discussions outside the officia! processes with parties
such as lobbyists, interest groups, unions and NGOs.

® Such as stocks, real estate and other property, financial haldings, shares in a company, bonds, notes or other
financial instruments.

6.1

6.2

6.3

5.4

6.5

6,6

6.7

7.1

7.2

Eenforcement of the rules regarding conflicts of interest and
declarations of assets, income, liabilities and interests

Please describe the sanctions and enforcement mechanism(s) in place regarding

violation by members of parliament of the rules on the prohibition or restriction of
certain activities as described in section 4.

For any enforcement mechanism that involves criminal prosecution, please indicate
if members of parliament are subject to special criminal proceedings or immunities,
different from those applicable to other citizens and, if so, describe the differences.

For any nan-crimina} enforcement mechanism, please provide the following
information:

a) what person(s) or entity/entities is/are responsible for carrying out
proceedings;

b) the composition of this entity/these entities, if appropriate;

c) to what body it is/they are subordinated;

d) the resources at its/their disposal;

e) the procedures followed;

f} how investigations are conducted and what triggers investigations (e.g.,
complaints by citizens, colleagues, others, whistleblowers);

9) how decisions are taken (unanimity or majority).

Please describe the sanctions and enforcement mechanism{s) in place regarding
violation by members of parliament of the rules on the obligation, if any, to submit

declarations of assets, income, liabilities and other interests as described in

section 5.

Please describe the mechanism(s) in place for verifying, reviewing or otherwise
checking whether the information contained in the declarations referred to in
question 6.4 is complete and accurate. What are the sanctions and procedures if
incomplete or inaccurate information is provided? What are the sanctions available
and procedures to be followed if the information reported discloses a potential
violation of any law or regulation?

Please highlight any changes that have occurred since GRECO’s last Third Round
Report as regards criminal law _provisions which are relevant as regards corruption
of members of parliament (e.g., provisions criminalising bribery of members of

parliament, trading in influence and offences connected with political financing).

Please provide information on the enforcement in practice of the rules on conflicts
of interest and declarations of assets, income, liabilities and interests in the last
three years (number of cases initiated, investigations carried out, outcome, etc).

Awareness

How are members of parliament made aware of the rules mentioned under sections
3t0 6 and ofthe conduct expected of them?

Please describe if and how members of parliament can obtain advice on the above-

mentioned rules and conduct expected of them. Who / what entity is responsible for
providing such advice?

7.3

81

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

9.1

9.2

Please indicate what information on the above-mentioned rules and conduct
expected of members of parliament {including as regards compliance/non-
compliance with these rules) is made available to the general public and how.

Corruption prevention in respect of judges_ and
prosecutors

Background information

Please provide an overview_of the court system in your country, indicating the
different categories of courts (in particular criminal, civil, administrative,

commercial, labour, social security, military, constitutional courts; excluding
arbitration courts) and the jurisdiction levels.

Please indicate whether the prosecution_service is part of the judicial branch,
executive branch or both,

Please describe the different categories of judges, indicating:

- whether they are appointed or elected;

whether there is a unique body of professional judges or whether certain court
decisions are rendered by specific categories of judges.

In what document is the principle of independence_of judges enshrined? Please

provide the relevant provision(s) in English or French.

Please indicate whether the prosecution service Is an autonomous institution, what
autonomy actually means in this context and how this autonomy is guaranteed.

Please indicate which individuals or institutions, if any, may give directives in
individual cases to (i) judges or (fi) prosecutors (e.g., regarding the
commencement of prosecution or dismissal of a case) Provide the text of the
relevant rules in English or French.

Please describe the internal organisation_of_ the prosecution service. Is a superior
prosecutor entitled to validate or invalidate decisions taken by inferior prosecutors

in a particular criminal case? What steps may the inferior prosecutor take if s/he
disagrees?

Recruitment and career

Please indicate whether (i) judges and {ii) prosecutors are elected/appointed for a
fixed_or indefinite period of time. If they are elected/appointed for a fixed period,
provide further details on the length of their mandate, whether it is renewable,
what criteria and procedures are used for its renewal and what entity decides upon
the renewability of their mandate.

Please indicate what persons(s) or entity/entities is/are responsible for the
following:

 

a) the appointment of (i) judges and (ii) prosecutors;

b) the promotion of (i} judges and (ii) prosecutors;

c) the mobility (transfer, rotation etc.) of (i) judges and (ii) prosecutors;
d} the dismissal of (f) judges and (ii) prosecutors,