It is common knowledge that corruption is one of the most dangerous factors jeopardising the rule of law, the economy and democratic development. The reason is straightforward: corruption attacks systems from within and is often facilitated by the very people who are relied on to enhance conditions for its suppression. However, too often only lip service is paid to suppressing it.

In combating corruption, the development of legal texts has turned out to be the easier part of the task. In this field, Europe's performance has surpassed that of other continents; European anti-corruption conventions lay down a complex system of standards that should at least prevent criminal acts of corruption. On the other hand, other anti-corruption initiatives, such as ensuring transparent funding of political parties and election campaigns, have still not been formulated in a legally binding text.

Proper implementation of international standards can only be ensured through appropriate monitoring mechanisms. The first organisation to create such a mechanism was the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, followed closely by the Council of Europe with the establishment of GRECO - the Group of States against Corruption. Even though the UN has been striving to establish a monitoring mechanism for its Convention against Corruption for some years, it seems a result is not yet near.

The organisation monitoring the implementation of European anti-corruption standards with the highest number of members is GRECO, which has 46. So far, it has examined the anti-corruption measures in its member states with regard to their legal framework, the work of anti-corruption institutions and public offices, and immunity systems. It is currently engaged in monitoring the transparency of political party funding.

This year GRECO marks its 10th anniversary. Since its foundation the group has contributed to the amendment of several constitutions and other regulations as well as to the establishment of anti-corruption institutions and improving their performance.

Is it really possible to ensure a truly pan-European fight against corruption, when states often pay only lip service to this struggle? One can allow oneself some degree of optimism here, as there has been a series of successfully managed cases in this field at international as well as national level. It is also common practice in most countries today to adopt and implement specialised anti-corruption strategies. However, Europe-wide the situation is not satisfactory. There are a number of disparities between the first 15 EU member states and other European countries. The level of interest in guaranteeing effective implementation of anti-corruption measures still depends solely on national political forces, while those fighting corruption in the field are often exposed to threats and serious danger.

The EU is now trying to address shortcomings by endangering the mechanisms that are already in place and thus breaking down the force of a geographically broad and unified Europe against corruption. The latter will most definitely occur, if the European Commission's plans for yet another, fourth, monitoring mechanism on the continent prevail.

Moreover, due to the influence of states whose main purpose is self-promotion, the upcoming European Anti-Corruption Network, which has the potential for serving as an efficient starting point for a joint practical approach against corruption in Europe, could run the risk of becoming just another talking shop.

Europe is still failing to meet its potential to combat corruption in individual states. The situation will not change until the commission and states realise that European ideals have been put at risk not only by a corrupt 'east' or 'south', but predominantly by the inexplicable ignorance of those in power of the need for a common pan-European development of effective anti-corruption measures.

Drago Kos is president of the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption