EU Statement at 10th Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, Review of the implementation of the UNCAC, Atlanta, 11-15 December 2023

Mr Chair, distinguished delegates, dear colleagues,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The following countries align themselves with this statement: North Macedonia^*, Montenegro^*, Serbia^*, Albania^*, Ukraine, Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina^*, Georgia, Iceland⁺, Liechtenstein⁺, Norway⁺, and Armenia.

Let me start by wishing you, Mr Chair, success for all the work during this session. We would also like to thank the members of the Secretariat for their great efforts, as always you have done an excellent job.

UNCAC IRM

As we have stated previously, we are looking forward to engaging in discussions concerning the future of the Implementation Review Mechanism (IRM), and we value more exchanges between States Parties on this subject. Indeed, we believe it’s high time that we start such a conversation. In order to foster such a debate, we would like to submit the following suggestions for consideration by States parties.

First, we support the draft decision tabled by the United States and Egypt to extend the duration of the second cycle of the Review Mechanism until June 2026, with the goal of having completed 70% of the reviews of States parties at that date, and to start the next phase in January 2027. However, this extension should be the last one, given the long duration of the First Phase, and not be conditioned on a certain fixed threshold. Parties that have not finished their review by that date could carry out the review of Chapters II and V of the Convention in the framework of their Phase 2 review.

Second, we agree that the Implementation Review Group should dedicate sufficient time, including through intersessional meetings and in informal consultations, for continuing the current discussions on assessing the performance of the Mechanism and its next phase, in order to agree on a decision by the Conference at its 11^th session on the scope, thematic sequence, as well as details of the next review Phase.

Concerning the subject matter of the next Phase, it seems obvious that it should include a follow-up on the implementation of recommendations made during the first Phase. But there are also very good reasons why it should not necessarily be limited to that. Changes in the national anti-corruption framework may have happened even where the review was relatively recent, and they may have rendered recommendations irrelevant – or conversely even more pressing. Given that in some cases, more than a decade may have elapsed between the Cycle 1 review and the 2nd Phase, the reviews may have to be determined more flexibly than during the First Phase, while maintaining common standards.

We also need to discuss whether the 2^nd Phase should assess the effective implementation of the Convention, rather than just legislative compliance (cf. OECD WG Bribery; FATF, GRECO).

Therefore, we believe, third, that it is necessary to hold, before the 11^th session of the Conference, an intersessional meeting to discuss the scope, thematic sequence and details of the next review phase.

We remain convinced that direct dialogue/country visits are extremely important and are a huge asset of the UNCAC IRM (compared to UNTOC IRM). They should be maintained and the involvement of other stakeholders, the private sector and civil society, could be enhanced.

We should also build on the positive experience from the first phase concerning the involvement of civil society in the reviews and we need to stress the key role that civil society plays in the fight against corruption. We need civil society to be active and highly engaged without restrictions and objections on participation. It is a well-established practice to invite representatives of civil society to the country visits and hear their views on the anti-corruption efforts of the country under review. We should make even greater use of the contributions that NGOs, academia and investigative journalists provide to the fight against corruption, bribery, money laundering and other Convention offences.

We believe that the transparency of the country reports needs to be enhanced. Publicly accessible information on the status quo of national anti-corruption efforts provides stakeholders with an opportunity to provide necessary input and enables partner countries to respond to context-specific technical assistance needs.

Finally, we believe it would be useful to hold a special session of the Conference on all aspects of the asset recovery and return process before CoSP11.

Let me now turn to the review of the EU.

The review of the EU under the 1^st cycle is nearing its completion. In November, we hosted the on-site visit in Brussels. The review team met with colleagues from all relevant EU institutions and services, as well as with civil society. We once again thank the experts from the peer reviewers and the UNODC secretariat for their commitment to this process, and hope that the review can be finalised in the first half of 2024. As for the EU’s 2^nd cycle  review, it would have to be completed in the framework of the Phase 2 review, in case that Phase had already begun.

Thank you, Mr Chair.

* Candidate Countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.

+ Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are members of the EFTA and of the European Economic Area.