DOCSLIB.ORG

GRECO Group of States Against Corruption 15Th General Activity Report (2014)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

GRECO Group of States against Corruption 15th General Activity Report (2014) Fighting corruption Promoting integrity Mission Thematic article: Results and impact Corruption in Sport – Interaction Manipulation of Sports Competitions GRECO Group of States against Corruption 15th General Activity Report (2014) Adopted by GRECO 67 (23-27 March 2015) Thematic article: Corruption in Sport – Manipulation of Sports Competitions Council of Europe French edition: 15e Rapport général d’activités (2014) du Groupe d’États contre la corruption The opinions expressed in this work are the responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily refect the ofcial policy of the Council of Europe. All requests concerning the reproduction or translation of all or part of this document should be addressed to the Directorate of Communication (F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex or [email protected]). All other correspondence concerning this document should be addressed to the GRECO Secretariat, Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law. Cover and layout: Document and Publications Production Department (SPDP), Council of Europe © Council of Europe, June 2015 Printed at the Council of Europe Contents FOREWORD 5 Marin MRČELA, President of GRECO 5 MISSION AND WORKING FRAMEWORK 7 Objective 7 Anti-corruption standards of the Council of Europe 7 Membership 8 Composition and structures 8 Methodology – Evaluation 9 Methodology – Compliance 9 Enhancing compliance 10 Evaluation Rounds 10 Transparency 11 CORE WORK 12 Evaluation procedures and key fndings 12 Emerging trends from Fourth Round Evaluations 19 Compliance procedures and key results 22 NEWS FROM MEMBER STATES 25 THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE – A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO CORRUPTION 29 EXTERNAL RELATIONS 33 GOVERNING STRUCTURES AND MANAGEMENT 35 Plenary and Bureau 35 Statutory Committee – Budget and Programme of Activities 35 Secretariat 35 THEMATIC ARTICLE 36 Corruption in Sport – Manipulation of Sports Competitions 36 APPENDICES 43 APPENDIX I – Representatives in GRECO (at 23/12/14) 43 APPENDIX II – Meetings held/attended 55 APPENDIX III – Secretariat 59 ► Page 3 Foreword Marin MRČELA, President of GRECO he Secretary General’s 2014 Report on the State – and trust in – a democracy. I would like to use this T of Democracy, Human Rights and the Rule of Law opportunity to express my gratitude to the authori- makes a compelling case for continued engage- ties of Austria and Monaco and to the International ment in the fght against corruption at all levels. Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) for the support they provided for the holding of the Laxenburg conference Too many people in Europe still face corruption in at which we took stock of emerging trends from the their daily lives. Moreover, the fnancial and economic frst two years of work on the Fourth Round. crisis has drawn attention to the pervasive efects of mismanagement, conficts of interest and corruption In 2014 it was a real pleasure to exchange views in in both public life and the private sector. the plenary with my predecessor as GRECO President Drago KOS who now chairs the OECD Working Group The Council of Europe with its 47 member States from on Bribery in International Business Transactions. across Europe has the capacity to direct signifcant From the unique perspective of his experience in both political and intellectual resources at dismantling the bodies he was able to dispel any fear of overlap of the legislative and institutional gaps that let corruption two and put a positive stress on the broad range of in. Work in the Organisation on developing a set of Council of Europe legal standards GRECO can draw standards for regulating lobbying – the only initiative on and the clear advantage that comes from the geo- of its kind worldwide – is an example that warrants graphic proximity of our broad membership. support. When the time comes, the Committee of Ministers might consider giving GRECO a clear man- EU accession to GRECO remains a major issue, espe- date to monitor implementation of that new instru- cially now that a new European Commission has ment. Another example is the work on corruption in taken up its functions. It is widely known that formal sport which is presented in the thematic article of participation of the European Union in GRECO has this report. been under discussion since the adoption by the EU of the 2010 Stockholm Programme and the publica- GRECO’s 49 member States (all Council of Europe mem- tion of the European Commission’s “Anti-corruption bers, Belarus and the United States of America) are package” in June 2011. Although quite some time has currently focusing their eforts in the Fourth Evaluation since passed ‒ and without any real breakthrough ‒ Round on strengthening the capacity of members of it is clear that EU participation in GRECO will help parliament, judges and prosecutors to prevent and strengthen the impact of the many anti-corruption tackle corruption within their own ranks. The institu- activities undertaken in Europe. The Secretary General, tions and services these professional groups represent Thorbjørn Jagland, has discussed these matters with are of paramount importance for the functioning of President Barroso and Commissioner Malmström. ► Page 5 In February 2014, the Commission presented the frst European Union. It is to be hoped that real progress EU Anti-Corruption Report. It extensively refects and in this area will be achieved in a not too distant future. references GRECO’s fndings, which is a clear tribute to our work. GRECO’s plenary also had a fruitful exchange The changes forged as a result of our work are proof of views with representatives of the Commission in that GRECO is not a public relations exercise; the aim March 2014 and expressed its willingness to pursue is to secure efective improvements in anti-corruption ad hoc cooperation with the Commission pending legislation and practice. We have all heard of the four formal accession. In June the Justice and Home Afairs eyes principle; in GRECO forty-nine pairs of eyes are Council urged the Commission to include in its next involved in validating the fndings of our evaluation anti-corruption report a review of the integrity poli- teams, formulating recommendations and tracking cies put in place in the EU institutions. The Council progress through a process that provides plenty also expressly called for the full accession of the EU of room for debate, critical analysis and peer pres- to GRECO as soon as possible and for the ensuing sure and little room for evading scrutiny. I invite the evaluation of the EU institutions by GRECO. By joining public, professional associations and NGOs wishing GRECO as a full member, the EU will add credibility to support our work to consult our country reports to its Anti-Corruption Report and eforts to address (www.coe.int/greco) and to lobby for full implementa- corruption, including within the institutions of the tion of our recommendations. Fourteenth General Activity Report (2013) of the Group of States against Corruption ► Page 6 Mission and working framework Objective others, the establishment of criminal ofences for active and passive bribery (as well as aiding and abet- ting in such ofences) of domestic public ofcials, RECO has been in operation since 1999. It is the domestic public assemblies, foreign public ofcials, G anti-corruption body of the Council of Europe, foreign public assemblies, members of international constituted as a monitoring body under an parliamentary assemblies and judges and ofcials of enlarged agreement, meaning that its member states international courts; for active and passive bribery in have actively chosen to participate in its evaluation the private sector and for trading in infuence. Parties procedures and make a frm and long-term commit- to the convention are required to make provision for ment to being proactive in preventing and counter- corporate liability, the protection of collaborators acting corruption. of justice and witnesses and to establish in respect The clear stated objective of the political deci- of the above ofences efective, proportionate and sions taken by the governments represented in the dissuasive sanctions. Its provisions on international Organisation to establish GRECO was to strengthen cooperation are designed to facilitate direct and swift the capacity of its members to fght corruption. The communication between national authorities. An monitoring model in place is designed to provide Additional Protocol to ETS 173 (ETS 191) requires each member state with a detailed analysis and set the establishment of criminal ofences for active and of recommendations that are tailored to addressing passive bribery of domestic and foreign arbitrators shortcomings in national anti-corruption policies, laws, and jurors. regulations and institutional set-up that have been The Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174) validated by its peers. Subsequent impact assessments deals with compensation for damage, liability, con- (“compliance procedures”) serve to verify achieve- tributory negligence, limitation periods, the validity ments and actively encourage progress towards the of contracts, protection of employees, accounts and implementation of the recommendations. Multiple auditing, the acquisition of evidence, interim measures layers of result validation and a high level of process and international cooperation in relation to corruption ownership are salient features of this model where defned as “requesting, ofering, giving or accept- the dynamics of mutual evaluation and peer pressure ing, directly or indirectly, a bribe or any other undue are brought into play. advantage or prospect thereof, which distorts the proper performance of any duty or behaviour required Anti-corruption standards of the recipient of the bribe, the undue advantage or of the Council of Europe the prospect thereof”. The three unique treaties developed by the Council It should be noted that within GRECO, the same evalu- of Europe deal with corruption from the point of view ation criteria and level of detailed scrutiny apply to of criminal, civil and administrative law. Corruption is states whether they have ratifed these treaties or not.
Recommended publications
  • In Search of Corruption Funds

    In Search of Corruption Funds

    In Search of Corruption Funds A comparative study of country practices prepared in fulfillment of the Advanced Research Project The Graduate Institute, Geneva, Fall 2016 Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ iii Acronyms and abbreviations ............................................................................ iv Executive Summary ........................................................................................... v Strategic recommendations ............................................................................ viii Technical recommendations ............................................................................. ix Part I: Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 Ia. Overview of the problem ............................................................................. 1 Part II: Research Overview ............................................................................... 3 IIa. Research questions and key assumptions .................................................... 4 IIb. Methodology .............................................................................................. 5 Part III. Common law practice ......................................................................... 7 IIIa. The United States .................................................................................... 7 Overview .......................................................................................................
  • To the Members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

    To the Members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

    SECRETARIAT AS/Jur (2017) CB 09 Rev 15 December 2017 To the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Synopsis of the meeting held in Paris on 12 December 2017 The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, meeting in Paris on 12 December 2017, with Ms Olena Sotnyk (Ukraine, ALDE) in the Chair, as regards: Strengthening international regulations against trade in goods used for torture and the death penalty (Rapporteur: Mr Vusal Huseynov, Azerbaijan, EPP/CD): considered a draft report and unanimously adopted a draft recommendation; Appointment of rapporteurs: - Human rights situation in the occupied regions of Georgia: appointed Mr Pierre-Alain Fridez (Switzerland, SOC) and heard from him a declaration of absence of conflict of interest; - Protecting human rights during transfers of prisoners: appointed Mr Emanuel Mallia (Malta, SOC) and heard from him a declaration of absence of conflict of interest; - Out-of-court settlement procedures in criminal justice: advantages and risks: appointed Mr Boriss Cilevičs (Latvia, SOC) and heard from him a declaration of absence of conflict of interest; - Ensuring greater follow-up of CPT recommendations: enhanced role of the Parliamentary Assembly and of national parliaments: appointed Mr Damir Arnaut (Bosnia and Herzegovina, EPP/CD) and heard from him a declaration of absence of conflict of interest; - Withdrawing citizenship as a measure to combat terrorism: a human rights-compatible approach?: appointed Ms Tineke Strik (Netherlands, SOC) in her absence, subject to her making
  • Robustness and Vulnerabilities to Corruption in Denmark's Aid Funding

    Robustness and Vulnerabilities to Corruption in Denmark's Aid Funding

    NUMBER 2 CMI REPORT JUNE 2017 AUTHORS Arne Strand (CMI) Robustness and vulnerabilities Arne Disch (Scanteam), Mirwais Wardak to corruption in Denmark’s (independent consultant) aid funding modalities in Afghanistan 2 CMI REPORT NUMBER 2, JUNE 2017 Robustness and vulnerabilities to corruption in Denmark’s aid funding modalities in Afghanistan CMI report, number 2, June 2017 Authors Arne Strand (CMI) Arne Disch (Scanteam) Mirwais Wardak (independent consultant) ISSN 0805-505X (print) ISSN 1890-503X (PDF) ISBN 978-82-8062-649-3 (print) ISBN 978-82-8062-650-9 (PDF) Cover photo A man at the marked in Kandahar Airfield is setting up his shop for the day. 2009. Photo by Thomas Sjørup, CC-license. Graphic designer Kristen Børje Hus www.cmi.no This report does not necesarrily reflect the views and opinions of the Danish Embassy in Kabul or the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. NUMBER 2, JUNE 2017 CMI REPORT 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Background and Introduction 5 2. Denmark’s financial assistance to Afghanistan 6 2.1 Danish Aid 2014–2017 6 2.2 Denmark’s fiduciary arrangements under the ACP 7 3. Corruption Risks and Efforts to Mitigate in Afghanistan 7 4. Models for managing corruption risk in development aid 9 5. Donor Corruption Risk Approaches 11 5.1 World Bank and ARTF 11 5.2 UNDP and LOTFA 12 5.3 The European Union / Commission 13 5.4 Bilateral donor in delegated cooperation agreements: DFID 13 5.5 Directly funded National bodies and NGOs 14 6. Denmark’s anti-corruption policies and practices 14 6.1 National bodies and NGOs 16 6.2 Multilateral programming 16 6.3 Multilateral trust funds 17 6.4 Delegated Cooperation Agreements 18 6.5 Summing Up 19 7.
  • Anticorruption in History: from Antiquity to the Modern

    Anticorruption in History: from Antiquity to the Modern

    ANTICORRUPTION IN HISTORY Anticorruption in History From Antiquity to the Modern Era Edited by RONALD KROEZE, ANDRÉ VITÓRIA and G. GELTNER 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Oxford University Press 2018 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2018 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2017940334 ISBN 978–0–19–880997–5 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.
  • GRECO: Twelfth General Activity Report (2011)

    GRECO: Twelfth General Activity Report (2011)

    Strasbourg, 23 March 2012 Greco (2012) 1E Final GRECO: Twelfth General Activity Report (2011) Thematic article : Corruption erodes Human Rights protection Adopted by GRECO 54 (20-23 March 2012) Directorate General I GRECO Secretariat F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Human Rights and Rule of Law Council of Europe +33 3 88 41 20 00 Information Society and Action against www.coe.int/greco Fax +33 3 88 41 39 55 Crime Directorate GRECO – the Group of States against Corruption FOREWORD......................................................................................................... 3 Marin MRČELA – President of GRECO MISSION AND WORKING FRAMEWORK .............................................................. 4 2011 – RESULTS AND IMPACT ............................................................................ 5 MEMBERSHIP ..................................................................................................... 5 RATIFICATION OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE LEGAL INSTRUMENTS ................................ 5 EVALUATION PROCEDURES.................................................................................. 5 Third Evaluation Round (Theme I): Incriminations – main results .......................... 6 Third Evaluation Round (Theme II): Transparency of Party Funding – main results .. 7 COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES ................................................................................. 9 PARTNERSHIPS ................................................................................................ 11 EXTERNAL PARTNERS.........................................................................................11
  • Greco(2016)22

    Greco(2016)22

    Strasbourg, 9 December 2016 Greco(2016)22 74th GRECO Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 28 November – 2 December 2016) SUMMARY REPORT Directorate General GRECO Secretariat F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Human Rights and Rule of Law Council of Europe +33 3 88 41 20 00 Information Society and Action against www.coe.int/greco Fax +33 3 88 41 39 55 Crime Directorate I. Opening of the meeting 1. The 74th Plenary Meeting, held in Strasbourg on 28 November – 2 December 2016 was chaired by Marin MRČELA, President of GRECO (Croatia). The President opened the meeting by welcoming all participants, referring in particular to newly nominated Heads of delegation and representatives. Mr Frank RAUE (Germany), previous member of the Delegation of Germany, participating in the present meeting as Evaluator for the Fourth Round Evaluation of Georgia, was making his last appearance in GRECO due to a change in professional responsibilities. He expressed his appreciation for the cooperation and work carried out on-site and in the plenary. 2. The list of participants appears in Appendix I. II. Adoption of the Agenda 3. The agenda was adopted as it appears in Appendix II. III. Information Items President 4. The President had represented GRECO at the European Partners against Corruption (EPAC)/European Contact-Point Network against Corruption (EACN) Annual Professional Conference and General Assembly (Riga, 15-17 November), where he had outlined the main areas that would be focused on by GRECO in the Fifth Evaluation Round when looking into corruption prevention in law enforcement agencies, and more specifically in the police. He will also participate, on 15 December 2016, in an event organised by the University of Murcia: International Day on Transparency and Public Participation – towards a transparent society, at which he will contribute to a roundtable on A transparent executive (Murcia, 15 December).
  • 5Th WORLD FORUM on INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE Baku, Azerbaijan: 2-3 May, 2019

    5Th WORLD FORUM on INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE Baku, Azerbaijan: 2-3 May, 2019

    5th WORLD FORUM ON INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE Baku, Azerbaijan: 2-3 May, 2019 Building dialogue into action against discrimination, inequality and violent conflict LIST OF PARTICIPANTS № Organization Name Position 1. Mr Nabil El Sharif Executive Director Anna Lindh Foundation Head of Intercultural Research 2. Ms Eleonora Insalaco and Programming Asian Development Bank 3. Mr Nariman Mannapbekov Country Director 4. Mr Nail Valiyev Senior Economics Officer Black Sea Economic Ambassador, First Deputy Cooperation (BSEC) 5. Mr Izzet Selim Yenel Secretary General Deputy of Head of Executive Commonwealth of Committee of the Commonwealth Independent States (CIS) 6. Mr Agybay Smagulov of Independent States Cooperation Council of Turkic 7. Mr Gismat Gozalov Deputy Secretary General Speaking States (Turkic Council) 8. Mr Farrukh Jumayev Project Director Ms Gabriella Battaini 9. Dragoni Deputy Secretary General 10. Mr Alexandre Guessel Director of Political Affairs Mr Manuel Montobbio De Chair of the North-South Center 11. Balanzo Executive Committee Council of Europe 12. Mr José Caroço Executive Director Global Education Programme 13. Mr Miguel Silva Manager 14. Mr Zoltan Hernyes Head of Office Ms Narmin Akhundova 15. Jumshudlu Assistant Economic Cooperation 16. Organization Mr Hadi Soleimanpour Secretary General 17. Mr Muhammad Farooq Assistant Director European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Head of Resident Office in 18. Ms Ivana Fernandes Duarte Azerbaijan European Commission Deputy Head of Delegation, Head of Political, Economic, 19. Mr Dionysios Daniilidis Press&Information section 20. Mr Kestutis Jankauskas Ambassador European Union 21. Ms Johanna Ketola Adviser International Centre for Migration Policy Development 22. Ms Saltanat Mammadova Project Officer International Committee of 23. the Red Cross (ICRC) Ms Elena Ajmone Sessera Head of Delegation 24.
  • Empirical Study of Anti-Corruption Policies and Practices in Nordic

    Empirical Study of Anti-Corruption Policies and Practices in Nordic

    Empirical Study of Anti-Corruption Policies and Practices in Nordic Countries The purpose of this research is to compile turally, Nordic countries tend to see a high Introduction and analyze information on corruption in level of social cohesion, and thus ordinary Nordic countries as well as the tools and citizens feel less of a need to engage in acts practices used to combat corruption in of corruption such as bribery. However, the order to identify effective practices which construction and service industries are ma- then could be implemented in Latvia. The jor sectors contributing to the shadow econ- countries we studied are Denmark, Iceland, omies of Nordic countries. Foreign bribery Finland, Norway, and Sweden. also remains a problem in most of Nordic countries, and the major example of the Te- The research is constructed by separately lia case will be examined. Despite thorough analyzing each country’s anti-corruption regulations on political party financing and framework, and the nature of its public asset disclosure for public officials, no Nor- and private sectors in regards to combat- dic countries have regulations on lobbying ting corruption, as well as the role played in place. by civic empowerment in each country. The sources used aim to be as recent as pos- Though there is some overlap in terms of sible, with most coming from the past five legislation combatting corruption in Nor- years, however older sources are occasion- dic countries, there are tools and practices ally referenced when pertinent. specific to individual countries as well. For example, Norway’s National Authority for In- Certain trends regarding corruption can be vestigation and Prosecution of Economic and identified across the Nordic countries.
  • (IRM): Denmark's Design Report 2019–2021

    (IRM): Denmark's Design Report 2019–2021

    Version for public comment: Please do not cite Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM): Denmark’s Design Report 2019–2021 This report was prepared in collaboration with Mikkel Otto Hansen, Associated partner to Nordic Consulting Group, Denmark Table of Contents Executive Summary: Denmark 2 I. Introduction 5 II. Open Government Context in Denmark 6 III. Leadership and Multistakeholder Process 10 IV. Commitments 14 1. The Danish National Archives provides open data to private individuals and professionals 15 2. Open data on workplace health and safety 17 3. Climate-atlas 19 4. Joint public collaboration on terrain, climate and water data 21 5. My overview (“Mit overblik”) 23 6. Independent rule of law assurance unit within the Danish Appeals Agency 25 7. Whistleblower schemes within the Danish Ministry of Justice 27 V. General Recommendations 29 VI. Methodology and Sources 32 Annex I. Commitment Indicators 34 1 Version for public comment: Please do not cite Executive Summary: Denmark Denmark’s fourth action plan continues to mainly focus on fostering public trust and transparency through open data. Notable commitments include creating a database with information on workplace safety and the introduction of whistleblower protection schemes with in the sphere of the Ministry of Justice. Future action plans could focus on improving transparency around lobbying and political financing. The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is a Table 1. At a glance global partnership that brings together government Participating since: 2011 reformers and civil society leaders to create action Action plan under review: 4 plans that make governments more inclusive, Report type: Design Number of commitments: 7 responsive, and accountable.
  • Rule of Law Report | SGI Sustainable Governance Indicators 2018

    Rule of Law Report | SGI Sustainable Governance Indicators 2018

    Rule of Law Report Legal Certainty, Judicial Review, Appointment of Justices, Corruption Prevention m o c . e b o d a . k c Sustainable Governance o t s - e g Indicators 2018 e v © Sustainable Governance SGI Indicators SGI 2018 | 1 Rule of Law Indicator Legal Certainty Question To what extent do government and administration act on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions to provide legal certainty? 41 OECD and EU countries are sorted according to their performance on a scale from 10 (best) to 1 (lowest). This scale is tied to four qualitative evaluation levels. 10-9 = Government and administration act predictably, on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions. Legal regulations are consistent and transparent, ensuring legal certainty. 8-6 = Government and administration rarely make unpredictable decisions. Legal regulations are consistent, but leave a large scope of discretion to the government or administration. 5-3 = Government and administration sometimes make unpredictable decisions that go beyond given legal bases or do not conform to existing legal regulations. Some legal regulations are inconsistent and contradictory. 2-1 = Government and administration often make unpredictable decisions that lack a legal basis or ignore existing legal regulations. Legal regulations are inconsistent, full of loopholes and contradict each other. Estonia Score 10 The rule of law is fundamental to Estonian government and administration. In the period of transition from communism to liberal democracy, most legal acts and regulations had to be amended or introduced for the first time. Joining the European Union in 2004 caused another major wave of legal reforms.
  • Greco : Thirteenth General Activity Report (2012)

    Greco : Thirteenth General Activity Report (2012)

    GRECO : THIRTEENTH GENERAL ACTIVITY REPORT (2012) Thematic article Lobbying and corruption Adopted by GRECO 59 (18-22 March 2013) For further information, GRECO Secretariat Directorate General I - Human Rights and Rule of Law Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 41 30 43 Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 41 27 05 www.coe.int/greco www.coe.int PREMS 80913 GRECO: THIRTEENTH GENERAL ACTIVITY REPORT (2012) Thematic article: Lobbying and corruption Adopted by GRECO 59 (18-22 March 2013) French Edition: GRECO: Treizième Rapport Général d’Activités Contents Foreword ...............................................................................................................................................5 Marin Mrčela – President of GRECO Mission and Working Framework ..........................................................................................................7 All requests concerning the reproduction or translation of all or part of the document should be addressed to the directorate of communication (f-67075 strasbourg cedex or [email protected]). all other correspondence Composition ..........................................................................................................................................9 concerning this publication should be addressed to the Directate General of Human Rights and Rules of Law – Secretariat of the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). Results and Impact ............................................................................................................................
  • Vusal Huseynov

    Vusal Huseynov

    Vusal Huseynov Mr Huseynov was elected a member of the Board of Governors of International Anti-corruption Academy for the term of 6 years (2015-2021) in December, 2015, at the fourth session of the Assembly of Parties. He obtained a bachelor degree in 2001, and master’s degree in 2005 from Azerbaijan State University of Economics, and LL.M degree Baku State University in 2013. In May 2011, Vusal Huseynov graduated from Harvard University with Master’s Degree in Public Administration. Along with his studies in HKS he also took part in year-long Mason Program and received Mason Certificate on Public Policy. Mr Huseynov served as advisor and later senior advisor post with department of Law Enforcement Coordination of the Administration of the President between the years 2011- 2013. In 2013, he was appointed Secretary of the Anti-corruption Commission of Azerbaijan. During these years, he also acted as a national focal point for CoE project on Good Governance and Fight against Corruption (Eastern Partnership) implemented in Azerbaijan, and as the national focal point of Open Government Partnership international initiative. In the 5th Azerbaijan Parliamentary Election held on November 1, 2015, Mr Huseynov was elected an MP for the term of 2015-2020, representing New Azerbaijan Party. As an MP, he was a deputy chair of the Delegation of Azerbaijan to the Council of Europe (CoE), and a member of the Group of the European People's Party in the CoE. In 2018, he was elected as vice-chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the CoE the CoE, and member of Judges’ election committee.