EU Parliament

Europe reopens dossier on abuse of office

New anti-corruption directive approved. Clash over the need to reintroduce the offence

by Giovanni Negri

26 March 2026

Strasburgo, Francia: Ingresso dell'edificio Louise Weiss, inaugurato nel 1999, sede ufficiale del Parlamento europeo che ospita l'emiciclo per le sedute plenarie. (Adobe Stock)

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

The clash over abuse of office is reignited. It was triggered by the European Parliament where the new anti-corruption directive was approved by a large majority (581 votes in favour, 21 against and 42 abstentions), giving states two years to adopt it. This wide-ranging measure intervenes on a plurality of offences against the public administration, introducing an innovative system of sanctions against companies based on turnover. Central to this is Article 7, which states that 'Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that at least certain serious infringements of the law resulting from the commission or omission of an act by a public official in the performance of his duties, when committed intentionally, constitute criminal offences'.

The Consulta's reactions

President of the Constitutional Court Giovanni Amoroso, responding at the annual press conference, emphasised that 'if this directive of the European Parliament changes the regulatory framework, it is possible that the Court will again be called upon to carry out the check that Article 111(1) of the Constitution provides for. Before that, of course, it will be politics that will be called upon to take note of this new European legislation'.

The controversy in Europe

For rapporteur Raquel Garcia Hermida (Netherlands, Renew), Italia will have to provide for forms of criminalisation that fall within the scope of the old abuse of office. 'If I look at the votes within the EU Council, Italia voted in favour of these rules. So I hope that the directive will be implemented,' noted Eurocamera president Roberta Metsola.

Alessandro Ciriani, MEP for Fratelli d'Italia, replied sharply: 'It is singular that a Dutch MEP thinks she knows the criminal law system in Italy better than the Ministry of Justice. The directive does not require the reintroduction of abuse of office: the text leaves states full discretion in defining criminal offences'.

And in Italia it is clash

But in Italia, in the incandescent days following the referendum on justice, the European Parliament vote revives the controversy. Debora Serracchiani and Federico Gianassi, PD deputies, immediately signed a question to ask the Minister of Justice Carlo Nordio 'what he intends to do, given that with his regulatory initiative the crime has been abolished, thus contravening the directive that was already under discussion. A circumstance that we had repeatedly pointed out, also to avoid a potential infringement'.

And 5Stelle Movement leader Giuseppe Conte attacks: 'Another blow for Meloni and Nordio on justice has arrived. The Italia government will be forced to backtrack on the cancellation of abuse of office'.

The background

But Nordio, in December, after the negotiations on the directive, exulted: 'In the end, the originally planned offence of abuse of office was completely deleted. Our arguments were evidently convinced. Italia has many other offences (more than 17 offences) to combat the illegal behaviour of public officials'.

The gaps in protection

It remains to be seen, therefore, whether the government considers a resounding rethink to be necessary. That, however, the repeal of abuse of office has left unprotected a whole series of previously sanctioned conducts has been recalled by the Csm, with a very critical opinion in February 2024 and by numerous judicial offices. And yesterday, the president of the Anti-Corruption Authority asked the government to intervene precisely to fill the open protection gaps, evidence of a backward step in the fight against corruption.

Moreover, Nordio himself had in any case taken note of the need to intervene when, at the same time as deleting abuse of office, he introduced a new offence, misappropriation of money or movable property, in order to strike at certain conduct of the public official.

The Jurist's Opinion

Gian Luigi Gatta, Professor of Criminal Law at the Statale University in Milan, tries to draw some conclusions: 'given that the complete abolition of abuse of office leaves serious gaps in protection, which cannot be filled by other rules, and that it proves to be a highly critical choice today more than ever, it must also be recognised that the obligation to incriminate the unlawful exercise of public functions is formulated by the Directive in very general terms and leaves wide margins to the Member States to identify the violations of the law to be criminalised'.

"The game being played with Brussels," recalls Gatta, "is a political one: Italia, on the tables of the directive, has watered down the obligation to incriminate abuse of office, which was originally envisaged precisely because it had recently abolished that crime. However, it is certainly true that there are gaps in protection (e.g. abuse committed to the detriment of the citizen or abuse of advantage committed by favouritism in public competitions) that constitute serious violations of the law within the meaning of the directive, but which it is left to the discretion of the national legislator to identify and punish.

'It will be a matter of seeing,' Gatta concludes, 'if and when the EU Commission will be able to challenge its non-implementation. What is certain is that it would be appropriate to intervene right now, for example to provide criminal law protection for competitions in the civil service and universities, which currently lack it'.