Working paper examines judicial sentencing in anti-corruption law, suggesting a contextual mechanism for better coherence.
This Working Paper examines whether the conduct-based architecture of European Union anti- corruption criminal harmonisation fully articulates cumulative gravity in cases of judicially established recurrence within defined institutional contexts. Article 83(1) TFEU identifies corruption as an area of particularly serious crime with a crossborder dimension, providing the constitutional basis for minimum harmonisation of offences and sanctions. The proposed Directive on combating corruption reinforces a conduct-centred model grounded in Legality and legal certainty. The paper does not propose new criminal categories, nor does it alter offence definitions or statutory maxima. Instead, it introduces a strictly delimited structural calibration mechanism applicable exclusively at the stage of judicial sentencing individualisation, where multiple harmonised offences are proven within a defined institutional context. The objective is to enhance proportional coherence and expressive alignment between institutional recognition of structural impact and conduct-based penal design, while fully respecting legality, subsidiarity, and the minimum harmonisation framework of EU law.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Javier Marzal (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: