Is it enough to count only the number of suspicions and verdicts to understand if anti-corruption bodies are effectively tackling corruption? JustGroup, with support from the EU Anti-Corruption Initiative (EUACI), held an in-depth discussion on strategic management and the transition from quantitative metrics to the assessment of the systemic impact of anti-corruption institutions.
Key Takeaways from the Discussion:
- Effectiveness is more than just statistics. A high number of proceedings does not always mean a systemic impact. The real indicator is a change in state practices and the reduction of corruption risks.
- The effectiveness of the work of anti-corruption bodies and the court are interdependent. The results of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) depend on the quality of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) prosecution, which in turn depends on the evidence base provided by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU).
- Communication = Trust. Society must understand not only the final verdict but also the logic of the processes behind it. A misunderstanding of a specific body’s mandate and placing expectations on it that belong to the competence of another leads to a distorted perception of effectiveness.
As a reminder, last year SAPO and the HACC approved their institutional strategies for 2026–2028. These documents were prepared with the participation of experts engaged by the EUACI.
Want to dive deeper into the topic?
- Read the Discussion Paper: Link to PDF
- Watch the discussion on YouTube: Link to video
- Listen to the podcast: Apple Podcasts | Spotify
