Weekly analysis for 24 — 30 March

European Parliament Adopts New Anti-Corruption Directive

Event

On 26 March, the European Parliament voted for a new Directive on combating corruption, which replaces the Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of July 22, 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector, as well as the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union, in addition to amending Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the fight against fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union through criminal law (hereinafter – the Directive).

Directive must now undergo formal adoption by the Council of the EU. The European Union operates a bicameral legislative system, in which both the Council of the EU or Council of Ministers, represented by the relevant ministers from each Member State, functions as the “upper” chamber. Once adopted, the Directive must be published in the Official Journal of the EU and will enter into force 20 days thereafter. Currently, the official text of the Directive has not yet been published.

Given the Directive’s fundamental significance, the adoption process has been lengthy: 

– on May 3, 2023, the European Commission presented the proposal for the Directive for the first time;

– on December 2, 2025, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament reached a provisional agreement on the final text;

– on March 23, 2026, the European Parliament had the final vote for the adoption of the framework (581 votes in favour, 21 against);

– on March 26, 2026, the official announcement was made on the approval of the first EU-wide anti-corruption framework.

The next phase will involve implementation of the Directive into national legal systems, including criminal codes. This process is expected to take 24 months, with up to 36 months allowed for certain provisions.

CPLR’s assessment

The Directive is a substantial legal act, composed of Preamble (50 recitals) which functions as a combination of an explanatory note and commentary on the articles, as well as 40 articles.

The agreed text represents a comprehensive revision of the EU legal framework for combating corruption, based on Articles 82–83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It should be recalled that Article 82 concerns the mutual recognition of judicial decisions and the harmonization of procedural rules, whereas Article 83 confers upon the EU the competence to establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and penalties in respect of particularly serious crimes). The new Directive ensures:

• harmonization of legal concepts;
• definition of corruption-related criminal offenses, and the establishment of clear and dissuasive sanctions applicable to both individuals and legal persons;
• mandatory implementation of controlled preventive measures aimed at countering corruption.

At the same time, the Directive implements the objectives of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, to which the EU is a party.

Chapter I of the Directive, entitled “General Provisions”, sets out the subject matter and scope of application of the Directive and contains the definitions of approximately ten key concepts.

Chapter II, “Corruption Offences”, defines the content of a range of criminal offences, including bribery in both the public and private sectors, misappropriation, trading in influence, unlawful exercise of public functions, obstruction of justice, enrichment from corruption-related offences, concealment, as well as standards of penalties and measures applicable to both natural and legal persons, as well as rules governing limitation periods.

Chapter III, “Prevention, Reporting and Investigation”, establishes standards for anti-corruption measures, encompassing national strategies, institutional arrangements, the resources and trainings, the protection of whistleblowers, investigative tools, measures for freezing and confiscation, information exchange, the rights of victims and the interested public, as well as the suspension or reassignment of public officials.

Chapter IV, “Coordination and Cooperation”, governs cooperation between Member States and the institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies of the Union, and establishes provisions on data collection and the development of statistical reporting.

Chapter V, “Final Provisions”, introduces amendments to Directive (EU) 2017/1371 and sets out rules on evaluation and reporting, as well as on the entry into force of the Directive.

Ukraine’s obligation, as a candidate country for EU membership, to align its legislation with EU law (acquis communautaire) is based on the requirements of Article 56 (Title V, Chapter 1) of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union, the candidate status granted by the European Council on June 23, 2022, and the Copenhagen criteria.

At the meeting in Copenhagen (June, 1993), the European Council affirmed that any European state which respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union may apply for membership of the EU, subject to fulfilling a set of requirements known as the Copenhagen criteria, including: 1) political: stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities; 2) economic: the existence of a functioning market economy; 3) membership: obligations arising from EU accession, including adherence to the political, economic, and monetary objectives of the Union.

In 2020, to further clarify the Copenhagen criteria, the European Commission developed an Updated Enlargement Methodology, which serves to assess the readiness of candidate countries for accession to the European Union. Consequently, the negotiation process for Ukraine’s EU membership is divided into 35 negotiation chapters across 6 thematic clusters, with each chapter being examined and assessed separately by the European Commission.

Issues related to corruption prevention fall under the cluster “Fundamentals of the Accession Process” in Ukraine’s EU membership negotiations. This is a key cluster that is opened first and closed last, and it covers the rule of law, the judiciary, and anti-corruption measures (notably Chapter 23).

A Member of Parliament proposes strengthening the protection of corruption whistleblowers in the security and defence sector

Event

On March 18.2026 draft law №15089 “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Improvement of Procedures for Ensuring the Protection of Whistleblowers of Corruption in the Security and Defence Sector” was registered in the Verkhovna Rada.

According to the explanatory note, the initiative is justified by the fact that, in the context of russia’s armed aggression, the martial law and general mobilisation, corruption in the security and defence sector constitutes a direct threat to national security, the State’s defence capability, and the lives of military personnel. At the same time, the current legislative framework fails to ensure adequate level of protection for whistleblowers in this sector, particularly as it does not take into account their specific vulnerability to potential persecution by their superiors.

The draft law proposes to expand the range of security measures available to military personnel and persons liable for military service who act as whistleblowers of corruption in the security and defence sector, and to introduce additional guarantees of their social and legal protection through amendments to the following laws:

– “On Ensuring the Safety of Individuals Participating in Criminal Proceedings”: (a) adaptation of protection mechanisms to the specific conditions of military service, including the possibility for whistleblowers to request the application of security measures in the event of threats to their life, health, or property; (b) introduction of additional protective measures, including secondment, transfer to a new place of service, and the granting of one-time additional leave to facilitate such transfer; or (c) establishment of the right to receive a reward;

– “On Social and Legal Protection of Military Personnel and Members of Their Families”: establishment of the right to the aforementioned leave and determination of the procedure for its granting;

– “On Mobilisation Preparation and Mobilisation”: provision of a deferment from conscription for military service during mobilisation.

CPLR’s assessment

Although the proposed amendments are generally intended to strengthen the institutional mechanisms for the protection of corruption whistleblowers in the security and defence sector and may contribute to reducing corruption within military structures, Draft Law № 15089 reveals a number of conceptual and technical legal shortcomings.

First, the proposed approach creates a functional conflict between guarantees of whistleblower anonymity and access to protection measures. A significant part of the envisioned safeguards (including leave, transfer to another place of service, and deferment from mobilisation) requires formal identification of the individual, thereby rendering anonymity unattainable. At the same time, the draft law does not provide for a secure mechanism for transitioning from anonymous reporting to controlled identity disclosure to a limited circle of authorized bodies, which risks producing a deterrent effect on potential whistleblowers.

Second, the draft law fails to ensure adequate confidentiality safeguards for whistleblowers at the pre-protection stage. The existing regulatory framework primarily applies to individuals who have already been formally placed under protection, whereas the highest level of risk arises precisely at the initial stage.

Third, the provisions regarding rewards for whistleblowers partially reproduce Article 53-7 of the Law “On Corruption Prevention”, but do not take into account its key elements such as thresholds, the distribution mechanism, or clear criteria for determining status. This creates risks of overlapping and incomplete regulation of the same institution.

Fourth, the wording “have the status of whistleblowers” is legally vague and may cause difficulties in enforcement, as it does not establish a clear procedure for acquiring such status.

Fifth, the draft fails to address the institutional aspect of ensuring security. In particular, it omits a properly defined role for pre-trial investigative bodies, including the State Bureau of Investigation, potentially creating a gap between investigative functions and protection mechanisms.

The draft law’s approach is partially aligned with Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law, which calls for effective, proportionate, and dissuasive protection mechanisms. However, the Directive extends far beyond corruption-related offences, encompassing a broader range of violations, and establishes clear safeguards for confidentiality and anonymity. In particular, it requires strict limitations on the number of individuals authorized to access and process information concerning a whistleblower.

Furthermore, the new EU anti-corruption framework adopted by the European Parliament on 26 March 2026 emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to combating corruption. This includes ensuring strong whistleblower protection, preventing retaliation, and creating secure channels for reporting misconduct. In this context, the Ukrainian draft law requires further refinement to ensure full alignment with European standards.

Conclusion

Draft Law №15089 constitutes an important step toward strengthening whistleblower protection in the security and defence sector. However, in its current version, it does not achieve an appropriate balance between the effectiveness of protection measures and the guarantees of confidentiality and anonymity.

To ensure a systemic impact, it is advisable to: (a) harmonize its provisions with the Law “On Corruption Prevention” in particular by eliminating duplication; (b) introduce a phased approach to the disclosure of a whistleblower’s identity, supported by clear safeguards for confidentiality and anonymity; (c) further improve the mechanism for acquiring whistleblower status; and (d) strengthen institutional coordination between agencies responsible for investigations and security. 

In the absence of these amendments, there is a significant risk that the proposed safeguards will have only a very limited effect.