DOCSLIB.ORG

Fourth Evaluation Round A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fourth Evaluation Round A F O U R T H Adoption: 21 October 2016 Public Publication: 13 February 2017 GrecoEval4Rep(2016)1 E V FOURTH EVALUATION ROUND A Corruption prevention in respect of members of L parliament, judges and prosecutors U A T I EVALUATION REPORT O N AUSTRIA R Adopted by GRECO at its 73rd Plenary Meeting O (Strasbourg, 17-21 October 2016) U N GRECO Secretariat Directorate General I Council of Europe Human Rights and Rule of Law www.coe.int/greco D F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Information Society and Action +33 3 88 41 20 00 against Crime Directorate TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 4 I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 5 II. CONTEXT .................................................................................................................................................. 7 III. CORRUPTION PREVENTION IN RESPECT OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT .................................................. 9 OVERVIEW OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM ................................................................................................................. 9 TRANSPARENCY OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS ............................................................................................................... 9 REMUNERATION AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS ................................................................................................................. 11 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES AND RULES OF CONDUCT .............................................................................................................. 12 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................................................................................................................... 13 PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................... 13 Gifts and other benefits ............................................................................................................................... 13 Incompatibilities, accessory activities and financial interests ..................................................................... 16 Contracts with State authorities .................................................................................................................. 17 Post-employment restrictions ...................................................................................................................... 17 Third party contacts and lobbying ............................................................................................................... 17 Misuse of confidential information ............................................................................................................. 19 Misuse of public resources ........................................................................................................................... 19 DECLARATION OF ASSETS, INCOME, LIABILITIES AND INTERESTS ....................................................................................... 19 SUPERVISION ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AND IMMUNITY ................................................................................................................. 25 TRAINING AND AWARENESS ..................................................................................................................................... 26 IV. CORRUPTION PREVENTION IN RESPECT OF JUDGES ............................................................................... 28 OVERVIEW OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM .......................................................................................................................... 28 Categories of courts and jurisdiction levels ................................................................................................. 28 OTHER INSTITUTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 30 Independence of the judiciary and the administration of courts ................................................................. 30 Consultative and decision-making bodies ................................................................................................... 32 RECRUITMENT, CAREER AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE ................................................................................................... 33 Recruitment requirements ........................................................................................................................... 33 Appointment procedure and career advancement ...................................................................................... 35 Evaluation of a judge’s performance ........................................................................................................... 36 Transfer of a judge; Termination of service and dismissal from office ........................................................ 37 Salaries and benefits .................................................................................................................................... 37 Lay judges .................................................................................................................................................... 37 CASE MANAGEMENT AND COURT PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................. 38 Assignment of cases .................................................................................................................................... 38 The principle of hearing cases without undue delay ................................................................................... 38 The principle of public hearing .................................................................................................................... 39 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES AND RULES OF CONDUCT .............................................................................................................. 39 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................................................................................................................... 40 PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................... 41 Incompatibilities and accessory activities .................................................................................................... 41 Recusal and routine withdrawal .................................................................................................................. 44 Gifts ............................................................................................................................................................. 44 Post-employment restrictions ...................................................................................................................... 45 Third party contacts, confidential information ............................................................................................ 46 DECLARATION OF ASSETS, INCOME, LIABILITIES AND INTERESTS ....................................................................................... 46 SUPERVISION ........................................................................................................................................................ 46 ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AND IMMUNITY ................................................................................................................. 48 2 V. CORRUPTION PREVENTION IN RESPECT OF PROSECUTORS .................................................................... 50 OVERVIEW OF THE PROSECUTION SERVICE .................................................................................................................. 50 RECRUITMENT, CAREER AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE ................................................................................................... 51 Recruitment requirements ........................................................................................................................... 51 Appointment procedure and promotion to a higher rank ........................................................................... 51 Evaluation of a prosecutor’s performance .................................................................................................. 52 Transfer of a prosecutor .............................................................................................................................. 52 Termination of service and dismissal from office ........................................................................................ 52 Salaries and benefits .................................................................................................................................... 52 CASE MANAGEMENT AND PROCEDURE ....................................................................................................................... 53 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES AND RULES OF CONDUCT .............................................................................................................. 57 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of Non-Europe in the Area of Corruption Research Paper by RAND Europe
    The Cost of Non- Europe in the area of Organised Crime and Corruption Annex II - Corruption STUDY EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service European Added Value Unit PE 579.319 - March 2016 The Cost of Non-Europe in the area of Organised Crime and Corruption Annex II- The Cost of Non-Europe in the Area of Corruption Research paper by RAND Europe On 7 September 2015, the Coordinators of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) requested the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) to prepare a 'Cost of Non Europe Report' on Organised Crime and Corruption to support work on the own-initiative report on the fight against corruption and follow-up of the CRIM committee resolution (2015/2110 (INI), Rapporteur Laura Ferrara (EFDD, IT)). In response to this request, a general assessment1, bringing together the research findings of three studies commissioned from outside experts, has been drawn up by the European Added Value Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value within DG EPRS. Its aim is to help improve understanding of the subject matter by providing evidence of the specific benefits that could be achieved through European action to fight organised crime and corruption. The three studies commissioned from outside experts are published as separate documents: - RAND Europe, research paper on the costs of non-Europe in the area of corruption (PE 579.319); - Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) & Economisti Associati srl, research paper on the costs of non-Europe in the area of organised crime (PE 579.318); and - -Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Annual Report
    www.klri.re.kr Korea Legislation Research Institute 2015 Annual Report Vol.2 Annual Research ProjectsⅠ www.klri.re.kr Korea Legislation Research Institute 2015 Annual Report Vol.2 Annual Research ProjectsⅠ Preface to the Publication The Korea Legislation Research Institute has been presenting legislative alternatives to outstanding national policy issues and has been supporting the legislation of government policies as the one and only government-funded research institute specializing in legislation for the last 25 years since its establishment in 1990. In the last year, the Korea Legislation Research Institute has also published legislative research YLWVY[ZPU]HYPV\ZÄLSKZZ\JOHZW\ISPJHKTPUPZ[YH[PVULJVUVT`^LSMHYL and global issues. The five administrative goals of the Government in order to become a highly developed country, namely "a creative economy focusing on QVIJYLH[PVU [HPSVYLKLTWSV`TLU[HUK^LSMHYL JYLH[P]P[`VYPLU[LK education and cultural enrichment," "a safe and united society" and "establishment of infrastructure for a happy unification era", can be achieved through strategies and tasks that support such goals. The Korea Legislation Research Institute provides legislative support so that the five administrative goals of the Government may be realized LɈLJ[P]LS` Especially in 2015, the Korea Legislation Research Institute established SLNPZSH[P]LYLZLHYJOMVY[OLLZ[HISPZOTLU[VMSH^HUKVYKLYHUK[OL realization of a safe society," "legislative support for the realization of sustainable peace," and "legislative support for the creation of infrastructure for a healthy information and communications ecosystem" as its business goals and conducted a large number of research projects related thereto. The Korea Legislation Research Institute has published the "Korea Legislation Research Institute (KLRI) Annual Report 2015" in order to contribute to the improvement and revision of related legislation by ^PKLS`PUMVYTPUNHUKKPZZLTPUH[PUN[OLYLZ\S[ZVMWYVMLZZPVUHSHUK ZWLJPHSPaLKYLZLHYJOPU[OLÄLSKVMSLNPZSH[PVUP[JVUK\J[ZHUKMVY\[PSPaPUN the results thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Rising of Anticorruption Training System
    Rising of Anticorruption Training System Central Anti-Corruption Bureau Rising of Anticorruption Training System „This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein” Centralne Biuro Antykorupcyjne Al. Ujazdowskie 9 00-583 Warszawa www.cba.gov.pl Graphic design, typesetting and printing Format Plus ul. Stroma 41, 01-100 Warszawa, Poland www.formatplus.info.pl Nakład 500 egz. „This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein” Warsaw 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 7 INTRODUCTION 10 SEMINARS E-LEARNING PLATFORM 18 25 COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT INTRODUCTION Harm caused by corruption in terms of loss and different programmes – all of these actions require damage associated with bribery are becoming – in the specific and often new skills. rapidly developing world – more widely understood by the public. It is becoming obvious that we should Given the above, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau make every effort to eliminate corruption. The public (in Polish: Centralne Biuro Antykorupcyjne) requested authorities should support the development of skills the European Commission to award the grant as part and tools to prevent crime by ensuring training and of the programme titled Prevention of and Fight professional development for officials in agencies against Crime. The Commission decided in 2012 to and public institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Full Survey
    Jones Day Table of Contents GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................................................... iii Africa ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Kenya ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Mozambique ........................................................................................................................................... 9 South Africa .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Asia Pacific .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Australia ................................................................................................................................................ 17 China ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 Hong Kong ............................................................................................................................................ 26 India .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE RISE of POPULISM – Whose Fault?
    THE RISE OF POPULISM – Whose fault? By Adela Danaj Submitted to the Central European University Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisor: Levente Littvay Budapest, Hungary CEU eTD Collection October 2019 Acknowledgment of Financial Support The research to this dissertation was sponsored by Central European University Foundation, Budapest (CEUBPF). The theses explained herein are representing the own ideas of the author, but not necessarily reflect the opinion of CEUBPF. CEU eTD Collection Abstract Scholars have shown that low economic performance, unstable labor markets and low investment in education are associated with the increase of the populist discourse. The results of the last European Elections, initially has been warned by the national elections of 2017 and 2018 in countries like France, Italy, Hungary and other European consolidated countries, when the populist parties took power. Using both, the country analysis and a study case method, the main aim of the study is to test whether there is an association between the corruption, the labor market, the education with the rise of populist discourse. The study is separated into two stages. The first stage of analysis involves 40 countries from Europe, North America, Latin America and Central Asia. The second stage of the analysis uses one study case, aiming to understand the mechanisms in-between the economic and political features. Austria has been selected as the case study. The study focuses on the effect of the economic and political dimension on the rise of populism. The conclusion highlights several main findings. The results of analyzing the unstable labor market, corruption and low investments in education by the government, suggest that populist discourse is likely to arise when both, the economic and the political determinants interact with each other and are controlled by the party ideology and government system.
    [Show full text]
  • ANTI-CORRUPTION REGULATION SURVEY of 41 COUNTRIES 2017-2018 Jones Day
    ANTI-CORRUPTION REGULATION SURVEY OF 41 COUNTRIES 2017-2018 Jones Day Table of Contents GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................ iii Africa .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Kenya .................................................................................................................................. 1 Mozambique ...................................................................................................................... 8 South Africa ..................................................................................................................... 11 Asia Pacific ................................................................................................................................... 16 Australia ........................................................................................................................... 16 China ................................................................................................................................ 20 Hong Kong ....................................................................................................................... 24 Japan ................................................................................................................................ 28 South Korea ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 319 Final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.9.2020 SWD(2020) 319 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 300 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 302 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 304 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 306 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 309 final} - {SWD(2020) 310 final} - {SWD(2020) 311 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 313 final} - {SWD(2020) 314 final} - {SWD(2020) 315 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 317 final} - {SWD(2020) 318 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 325 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final} EN EN ABSTRACT The level of perception of independence of the Austrian justice system is high. At the same time, concerns have been expressed regarding the procedures for the appointment of administrative court presidents as well as the right of the Minister of Justice to instruct prosecutors in individual cases. The Government has announced a general reflection on the issues of judicial recruitment, including in administrative courts, and on reporting obligations for prosecutors, which could contribute to addressing these concerns. Efforts to further develop the high level of digitalisation of the justice system are ongoing and the resources of the justice system have been increased.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the Odebrecht Case Nicolás Campos, Eduardo Engel
    The Ways of Corruption in Infrastructure: Lessons from the Odebrecht Case Nicolás Campos, Eduardo Engel, Ronald D. Fischer, and Alexander Galetovic Nicolás Campos, Researcher, Espacio Público, Santiago, Chile. Eduardo Engel is Professor of Economics, University of Chile, and Director, Espacio Público, both in Santiago, Chile. Ronald D. Fischer is Professor of Industrial Engineering, University of Chile, and a Research Associate, ISCI (Instituto Sistemas Complejos de Ingeniería), both in Santiago, Chile. Alexander Galetovic is Senior Fellow, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Santiago, Chile; Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford, California; and Research Associate, CRIEP (Centro di Ricerca Interuniversitario sull'Economia Pubblica), Padua. Italy. Their email addresses are [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected] 1 In 2010, the Swiss business school IMD chose Odebrecht, a Brazilian conglomerate, as the world’s best family business. Odebrecht was chosen for the excellent performance of its companies, its continuous growth, and its social and environmental responsibility. Sales had quintupled between 2005 and 2009, and Odebrecht had become Latin America’s largest engineering and construction company and ranked 18th worldwide among international contractors (Engineering News-Record Magazine 2009). By 2015, however, Odebrecht chief executive Marcelo Odebrecht had been arrested on corruption charges. Nine months later he was sentenced to more than 19 years in prison. The Odebrecht case, as it came to be known, involved bribe payments in ten countries in Latin America and two countries in Africa. Deltan Dallagnol, lead prosecutor in Brazil, commented (as reported by Pressly 2018). "The Odebrecht case leaves you speechless. This case implicated almost one-third of Brazil's senators and almost half of all Brazil's governors.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Integration and Interdependence in Central and Eastern Europe Vákát Oldal ECONOMIC INTEGRATION and INTERDEPENDENCE in CENTRAL and EASTERN EUROPE
    The volume reviews the processes and results of economic integration as well as patterns of inter- dependence in case of seven Central and Eastern European countries between 1989 and 2016. It presents country-specific experiences resulted from economic integration and interdependence. Based on these experiences, this comparative volume tries to identify the similarities and differences in paths Economic Integration and followed by these countries and their impact on eco- nomic convergence. 13% of Europe’s population live in these seven countries and this group contributes with 7.8% to the nominal GDP produced a year in Europe. All country-specific reports of the volume Interdependence in Central analyse the economic transformation process of the examined countries focusing on integration and interdependence in relation to other European coun- tries. The reports that are based on literature review and Eastern Europe and the analysis of statistical data, expound the main macroeconomic indicators and trends of the countries in order to provide a comprehensive picture. The work was created in commission of the National University of Public Service under the priority project PACSDOP-2.1.2-CCHOP-15-2016-00001 entitled “Public Service Development Establishing Good Governance”. AND INTEGRATION INTERDEPENDENCE… ECONOMIC Zoltán FelméryZoltán (ed.): Edited by ZOLTÁN FELMÉRY European Social Fund INVESTING IN YOUR FUTURE Economic Integration and Interdependence in Central and Eastern Europe Vákát oldal ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND INTERDEPENDENCE IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE Edited by Zoltán Felméry Dialóg Campus Budapest , 2020 The work was created in commission of the National University of Public Service under the priority project entitled “Public Service Development Establishing Good Governance”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Political Institutions in Combating Corruption And
    Catharina Groop Accountability and Corruption A Study into Political Institutions as Referees Between Principals and Agents Representative democracy is characterized by delegation of power. As a consequence, principal-agent relationships are established between citizens and their representatives, and beyond. Delegation of power from principals to agents has many advantages, but also involves risks in that agents may choose to disregard the wishes of | Accountability and Corruption | 2013 Catharina Groop Catharina Groop their principal. This may take the form of corruption, i.e. engagement in behaviour which deviates from the formal duties of a public role for personal benefit or that of family members, friends etc. This study regards political institutions as entities capable of solving Accountability and Corruption many of the problems between principals and agents, including A Study into Political Institutions as Referees Between cases whereby agents engage in corrupt practices. The study regards political institutions as problem-solvers in this respect, in that Principals and Agents they provide rules and procedures according to which principals can hold agents to account. Departing from the lines of accountability inherent to a number of political institutions, the study finds, however, that single political institutions tend to send a multitude of often contradictory signals with regards to accountability, at times enhancing accountability and at others hampering it. As a consequence, single political institutions also have reducing as well as increasing effects on levels of corruption. The study recognizes that institution-building does not constitute a panacea against corruption, and also analyses a number of other factors with a bearing on levels of corruption.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 FCPA/Anti-Corruption Year in Review Include Brigida Benitez, William L
    FCPA/Anti-Corruption Developments: 2018 Year in Review February 28, 2019 A publication of Steptoe’s FCPA/Anti-Corruption Practice, in collaboration with Steptoe’s White-Collar and Securities Enforcement Group FCPA/Anti-Corruption Developments: 2018 Year in Review1 Lucinda A. Low and Brittany Prelogar (eds.)2 Introduction US government enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in 2018 remained robust. While the 33 combined individual and corporate FCPA enforcement actions concluded by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2018 did not match the record of 61 enforcement actions concluded in 2016, the level of enforcement was largely consistent with the average number of enforcement actions brought over the last seven years. The US $2.91 billion in monetary sanctions levied in corporate FCPA enforcement matters in 2018 reached a record high, although the chart-topping $1.78 billion penalty imposed as part of the Petrobras settlement accounts for more than half of this amount. Notably, enforcement priorities of the DOJ and SEC appear to be increasingly diverging. The DOJ settled fewer corporate enforcement actions during the year but substantially increased the number of foreign corruption-related individual prosecutions. Only two of the six corporate enforcement actions settled by the DOJ in 2018 were not brought in conjunction with the SEC. Additionally, the DOJ issued four public declinations pursuant to the new FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, all but one of which included disgorgement. Consistent with requirements for eligibility under the program, all of the declinations cited the companies’ cooperation, voluntary self-disclosures, and remediation, and the DOJ appeared in at least one case to use a criminal declination to obtain disgorgement of proceeds that could not be reached by the SEC in parallel civil proceedings due to the five-year statute of limitations imposed on the SEC’s disgorgement penalty.
    [Show full text]