Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Germany
Table of contents
In Germany, the Federal Ministry of the Interior oversees integrity, transparency, and public administration standards, while the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection is responsible for the legal framework on corruption offences. There is no single central authority monitoring conflicts of interest across the public sector; oversight is largely decentralised. Lobbying is regulated under the Lobbying Register Act, and registration is required under the Act, which discloses the activities, clients, and financial information of lobbyists. Political finance is governed by the Political Parties Act and parties must submit annual financial reports, which are published online and audited by certified auditors. Access to official information is guaranteed under the Federal Act Governing Access to Information and core public datasets are proactively disclosed and largely accessible online.
The competent Federal Minister and the Judicial Selection Committee jointly decide appointments to the highest federal courts. Procedures are governed by the Courts Constitution Act and German Judiciary Act. The Federal Disciplinary Act governs disciplinary proceedings for federal civil servants.
Note: 2025 and 2020 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Data on where Germany’s integrity system is strongest and could be most improved can be found at the link below:
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Germany fulfils 0% of OECD criteria on the strength of strategic framework and 0% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 38% and 32% respectively.
While Germany has established statutory regulations related to public integrity, these regulations do not constitute strategic objectives for public integrity. Having a strategic framework based on evidence and outlining objectives and priorities is essential to mitigate corruption risks in the public sector.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Germany fulfils 60% of criteria on lobbying regulations, and 78% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 43% and 38%, respectively.
The Lobbying Register Act defines lobbying activities and identifies who qualifies as a lobbyist. Since 1 January 2022, The Lobbying Register Act applies to the representation of special interests towards the bodies, panels, Members, parliamentary groups or groupings of the German Bundestag, and towards the Federal Government. The Lobbying Register Act sets out sanctions for violations of transparency and integrity standards, proportionate to the severity of the offence.
The Bundestag administers the electronic Lobbying Register, which details registration requirements, procedures, and exceptions. The register is publicly accessible and allows searches by lobbyist, organisation, sector, or legislative issue. Disclosed data includes lobbyists’ names, organisations, areas of activity, and lobbying types. It also records financial information such as lobbying budgets, expenditures, and government grants, as their annual accounts. Aggregated data indicates each lobbyist’s identity, registration number, sources of funding, and policy areas of interest, including health, renewable energy, or foreign trade. The Code of Conduct, however, lacks practical illustrations of high-risk or undesirable lobbying behaviours. The Act on the Legal Status of Members of the Federal Government establishes post-employment restrictions for public officials, but no such cooling-off period exists for lobbyists.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Germany fulfils 22% of criteria on conflict-of-interest regulations, and 11% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 80% and 45%, respectively.
Germany’s broader public sector framework addresses conflicts of interests through the Federal Administrative Procedure Act which mandates the ad hoc-disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and the exclusion of affected officials from decision making officials by superiors. In addition, there is practical guidance from the Federal Government’s Rules on Integrity and Anti-Corruption Code of Conduct, and secondary employment regulations in the Federal Civil Servants Act and Civil Servants Status Act. Concerning issuing recommendations for resolution in cases of conflict of interest, the general rules apply. More specifically, interest declarations are required for Members of Parliament. Declarations from members of parliament on side activities and income from side activities are publicly available.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Germany fulfils 50% of criteria on political finance regulations, and 29% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 76% and 58%, respectively.
In Germany, the Political Parties Act establishes that donations from (non-EU) foreign states and enterprises are permitted with a threshold of 1000 euros. Regulations do not set a limit on personal contributions to candidates’ individual campaigns, and there is no ceiling on electoral campaign expenses for parties, candidates or third parties. Moreover, while certified auditors participate in the auditing process and the oversight of political finance, they are not employed on the payroll of the President of the German Bundestag, who is the authority responsible for supervision. Nevertheless, the financial reports of all political parties represented in the Bundestag have to be submitted within the statutory deadlines and are made available to the public online after finalisation of the assessment regarding the conformity of the report to formal and material statutory requirements. Violation of these obligations may lead to financial sanctions.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Germany fulfils 89% of criteria on public information regulations, and 58% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 72% and 62%, respectively.
In Germany, under the Federal Act Governing Access to Information held by the Federal Government, every citizen has an unconditional right to obtain official information from federal authorities. The grounds for restricting access are exhaustively listed in law and align with the Tromsø Convention. Information holders must provide the requested information in the format indicated, and individuals have a guaranteed right to appeal refusals or administrative inaction to an independent body or a court. The regulatory framework also specifies a list of datasets and categories of information that must be proactively disclosed.
While most information requests are free of charge, fees may be imposed under the Freedom of Information Act to prevent misuse, with basic information remaining exempt from such costs. Germany makes consolidated versions of all primary laws, the state budget, results of the most recent national elections, government legislative proposals submitted to parliament, public tenders and their awarded results at central level, as well as the company and land registries, publicly available, with many of these datasets aggregated on single websites.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted 7 March 2026).
Germany fulfils 85% of criteria on judicial integrity regulations, and 56% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 45%, respectively. The values reflect that Germany does not fulfil criteria relating to interest and asset declarations. OECD legal instruments leave it open to countries to decide what specific tools work best in their context. As one possible tool, interest declarations are included in the PIIs as they remain one of the tools applied by various OECD countries. According to the OECD Recommendation of the Council on OECD Guidelines for Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service (OECD/LEGAL/0316), conflict of interest regulations should follow a risk-based approach focusing on at-risk areas and functions, where significant conflicts are more likely to arise.
The Basic Law guarantees judges’ tenure and establishes merit-based procedures for judicial selection, which are specified by the Judges Election Act. According to these, judges at the highest federal courts are elected by Judicial Selection Committees. The competent Federal Minister must approve the election result before selected candidates are appointed by the Federal President. The judiciary participates in the selection process through the Presidium Council of the respective federal court, which assesses candidates’ personal and professional suitability. The decision of the Judicial Selection Committee is not subject to appeal, as it reflects the outcome of an electoral process. However, the subsequent decision taken by the competent Federal Minister may be challenged under the Code of Administrative Court Procedure.
Integrity standards are set out in the German Judiciary Act and the Anti-Corruption Code of Conduct. Conflicts of interest are regulated through procedural laws, such as the Civil Procedure Code or the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Germany Judiciary Act which specify circumstances and relationships that may give rise to impartiality concerns. While judges are not required to submit declarations of interests, conflicts of interests are regulated by a disqualification procedure through which judges may be challenged on “grounds of bias”. Disqualification grounds cover financial and private interests, as well as any type of conduct or interest arising outside the courtroom or the legal dispute and which may be cause for bias.
The Whistleblower Act requires internal reporting channels to allow submissions both in writing and orally and provides safeguards against retaliation for reporting persons. Internal reporting channels are available within the courts, staffed by senior judges trained in handling sensitive information and ongoing confidentiality guidance is provided. The Federal Office of Justice external reporting channel provides information on whistleblowers’ rights, procedures for reporting misconduct and contact details.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted 7 March 2026).
Germany fulfils 90% of criteria on prosecutorial integrity regulations, and 63% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 52%, respectively. The values reflect that Germany does not fulfil criteria relating to interest and asset declarations. OECD legal instruments leave it open to countries to decide what specific tools work best in their context. As one possible tool, interest declarations are included in the PIIs as they remain one of the tools applied by various OECD countries. According to the OECD Recommendation of the Council on OECD Guidelines for Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service (OECD/LEGAL/0316), conflict of interest regulations should follow a risk-based approach focusing on at-risk areas and functions, where significant conflicts are more likely to arise. The Courts Constitution Act and the German Judiciary Act provide for merit-based and objective procedures governing the selection and promotion of prosecutors. They also grant candidates the right to challenge decisions concerning their selection, appointment, and promotion. The Courts Constitution Act, in conjunction with the Federal Civil Service Act, also sets out objective grounds for their dismissal.
The Anti-Corruption Code of Conduct and the Courts Constitution Act define situations and relationships that may give rise to conflicts of interest for prosecutors. Related breaches constitute disciplinary violations and are sanctioned under the Federal Disciplinary Act. In Germany the Courts Constitution Act allows the court, defendant, or defence lawyer to request the prosecutor's superior to replace public prosecutors if there are grounds for lack of their impartiality.
Internal reporting channels within public prosecutors’ offices are established under the Whistleblower Act. These channels are operational, and reports are managed by senior prosecutors trained on handling sensitive information and on confidentiality. Whistleblower reports can also be submitted through the general external reporting channel, managed by the Federal Office of Justice, which provides information about whistleblowers’ rights, procedures for reporting misconduct and contact details.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted 7 March 2026).
Germany fulfils 75% of criteria on disciplinary system regulations, and 0% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 22%, respectively.
The Federal Disciplinary Act governs disciplinary procedures for civil servants, defining a disciplinary offence as any breach of official duties. The Act sets out a range of sanctions and establishes a statute of limitations for disciplinary actions. Civil servants may challenge disciplinary decisions by filing a complaint with the administrative court, which can review the decision, and may further appeal the court’s ruling. Additionally, the Criminal Code requires officials handling disciplinary cases to notify judicial or law enforcement authorities if the case involves suspected criminal conduct.
In Germany, there is no case management system for disciplinary proceedings. While data on disciplinary procedures are published annually, they are not provided in an open-data format or in a user-friendly manner.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Kosovo: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Harnessing the Integrity Advantage, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16708b78-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.