Information and Discussion Roundtable “Combating corruption at the heart of the European Integration Journey: The Perspectives of Youth, Civil Society, and Academia”, 14 October 2026

The European Movement in Albania (EMA), in cooperation with “Aleksandër Moisiu” University of Durrës (UAMD), organised an information and discussion roundtable at the EU Lab facilities of the university’s Faculty of Political and Legal Sciences on 14 October 2026. Moderated by PhD Olta Qejvani, lecturer of EU Law at UAMD, the event focused on combating corruption and the EU mechanisms for protecting its financial interests and enforcing the law.

Firstly, Gledis Gjipali, Executive Director of the European Movement in Albania (EMA), emphasised the importance of such discussions for the advancement of Albania’s European integration process, recalling that the fight against corruption is one of the central pillars of reforms related to the rule of law and the fulfilment of EU membership criteria. He underlined that young people’s engagement must be tangible and active, as they are the generation that will live and work in an Albania that is a member of the EU. Young people who understand how corruption operates and how European mechanisms to combat it function can make a meaningful contribution to fostering a culture of integrity, strengthening civic oversight of public fund management, and advancing the objectives of the European integration process.

Subsequently, Ermelinda Muçaj, Project Officer and author of the manual on European anti-corruption mechanisms published by EMA under the project “Justice NextGen: Empowering Young People in the Fight Against Corruption through Legal Education and Academic Debate,” funded by the Agency for the Support of Civil Society (AMSHC), presented the manual. She began by clarifying the concept of corruption, emphasising that it is not limited to bribery but also includes other forms, such as conflicts of interest, fraud, embezzlement, clientelism, extortion, and patronage. She explained why a European response to combating corruption has become necessary, given its cross-border dimension and the fact that it costs the EU between EUR 179 billion and EUR 990 billion annually. National criminal justice systems, organised along territorial lines, face difficulties in addressing this phenomenon independently. The EU legal framework was then presented, with a focus on Directive (EU) 2026/1021 on combating corruption, which harmonises nine criminal offences, including bribery in the public and private sectors, embezzlement, illicit influence, obstruction of justice, and concealment of assets obtained through corruption. The Directive provides for sanctions against natural persons and fines of up to 5% of worldwide annual turnover for legal entities. It also establishes obligations for Member States, including the adoption of national strategies, the establishment of dedicated bodies, continuous training, and risk assessments. The transposition deadline is 1 June 2028, while Denmark is excluded from the harmonisation framework under Protocol No. 22. Reference was also made to the European Commission’s annual Rule of Law Report, which serves as a preventive and monitoring instrument and, since 2024, has also covered four candidate countries for EU membership, including Albania. The main part of the discussion focused on the roles and competencies of European mechanisms, including the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), and the European Court of Auditors. In this context, it was highlighted that EPPO investigates and prosecutes crimes against the EU budget, including corruption and fraud involving EU funds. It operates through European Delegated Prosecutors and has working arrangements with the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Special Structure against Corruption and Organised Crime (SPAK) in Albania. As a practical example, the Motol case in the Czech Republic was analysed. In this case, a European investigation was carried out through national authorities and resulted in measures affecting assets worth approximately EUR 4 million. Regarding OLAF, it was explained that the Office conducts internal and external administrative investigations into the misuse of EU funds. OLAF does not have criminal investigative powers but may recommend the recovery of funds, disciplinary measures, or referral of cases to judicial authorities. In Albania, the IPARD case was discussed. An administrative investigation lasting approximately two years led the European Commission to suspend reimbursements and recommend the blocking of IPARD III funds. The discussion then turned to Eurojust, whose role in supporting judicial coordination when criminal activity affects two or more Member States was emphasised. This cooperation may involve Joint Investigation Teams (JITs), and it does not replace national authorities. Regarding Europol, it was clarified that the agency provides police cooperation support and is not a police force in the way it is often perceived by the public. Arrests and investigations remain within the competence of national authorities. Europol also provides criminal intelligence analysis and expertise through the Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA) and its 24/7 operational centre. Finally, the competencies of the European Court of Auditors were discussed. The Court conducts three types of audits: financial, compliance, and performance audits. It does not have investigative powers; however, when it identifies indications of fraud, it refers cases to OLAF and, where necessary, to EPPO. A comparative table outlining the competencies of each mechanism and its relationship with national authorities was also presented. 

The discussion then focused on the extent to which corruption reports and statistics reflect reality. It was emphasised that official figures, such as the number of cases investigated or judicial decisions issued, cannot fully capture the phenomenon, as corruption is inherently concealed and often goes unreported. In this context, the role of instruments such as the European Commission’s annual Rule of Law Report, which monitors developments in the rule of law across EU Member States and selected candidate countries, including Albania, was highlighted, alongside the contribution of independent European investigations. The importance of tangible results, including effective investigations, prosecutions, and asset recovery, was also emphasised, together with the role of civil society, academia, and young people in monitoring the use of public and European funds. Such engagement was recognised as an essential part of Albania’s path towards EU membership.

*This information and discussion roundtable was organised within the framework of the project “Justice NextGen: Empowering Young People in the Fight Against Corruption through Legal Education and Academic Debate,” funded by the Agency for the Support of Civil Society (AMSHC).