\n
Corruption remains one of the most persistent governance challenges in Europe. To create the list below we use the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2024<\/strong> published by Transparency International (released in February 2025) \u2014 the standard, widely used measure of perceived public-sector corruption worldwide. The CPI ranks countries on a 0\u2013100 scale where 0 = highly corrupt<\/strong> and 100 = very clean<\/strong>. In this article \u201cmost corrupt\u201d means the lowest CPI score \u2014 i.e., countries perceived as having the largest public sector corruption problems.\u00a0<\/p>\n Important note on methodology: the CPI reflects perceptions of public-sector corruption gathered from experts and businesspeople, using multiple data sources. Scores are rounded to whole numbers in Transparency International\u2019s published tables; the list below is based on those published CPI scores and sorted from lowest (most corrupt) upward for European countries<\/p>\n Below are the 20 European countries with the lowest CPI scores (most perceived corruption) according to Transparency International\u2019s CPI 2024 dataset. Each entry shows the CPI score and a short explanation of factors contributing to its low score.<\/p>\n 1. Russia \u2014 22<\/strong> 2. Azerbaijan \u2014 22<\/strong> 3. Bosnia and Herzegovina \u2014 33<\/strong> 4. Belarus \u2014 33<\/strong> 5. Turkey \u2014 34<\/strong> 6. Serbia \u2014 35<\/strong> 7. Ukraine \u2014 35<\/strong> 8. North Macedonia \u2014 40<\/strong> 9. Hungary \u2014 41<\/strong> 10. Albania \u2014 42<\/strong> 11. Moldova \u2014 43<\/strong> 12. Bulgaria \u2014 43<\/strong> 13. Kosovo \u2014 44<\/strong> 14. Romania \u2014 46<\/strong> 15. Montenegro \u2014 46<\/strong> 16. Malta \u2014 46<\/strong> 17. Croatia \u2014 47<\/strong> 18. Armenia \u2014 47<\/strong> 19. Greece \u2014 49<\/strong> 20. Slovakia \u2014 49<\/strong> <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This ranking is not<\/strong> an index of criminality, poverty, or cultural attitudes \u2014 it is a measure of perceptions of public-sector corruption<\/strong> derived from expert and business surveys compiled by Transparency International\u2019s CPI 2024 dataset. Because perception-based measures capture what informed observers see in public institutions, they are useful for cross-country comparison and trend analysis \u2014 but they should be read alongside local context, recent news, and national anti-corruption reforms. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Across the European countries listed above, several recurring drivers explain low CPI scores:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The Top 20 most corrupt countries in Europe \u2014 2025 (CPI 2024 scores)<\/h1>\n
Russia sits at the bottom among European states included here. Persistent problems include concentrated political power, weak checks on elites, limited judicial independence, and high levels of state capture that affect procurement and public finances.<\/p>\n
Azerbaijan\u2019s score reflects concerns over opaque public procurement, limited media freedoms, restricted civic space, and powerful patronage networks linking business and political elites. (Azerbaijan is often included in European\/Caucasus regional discussions.)<\/p>\n
Bosnia\u2019s fragmented post-war governance, clientelism, and weak rule of law undermine transparency and allow nepotism and corrupt contracting to persist across public institutions.<\/p>\n
The country\u2019s authoritarian model, limited institutional independence, and lack of transparent public procurement contribute to its low CPI score and entrenched corruption risks.<\/p>\n
Turkey faces problems with political influence over institutions, weak oversight, and concerns about transparency in public contracting and regulatory capture \u2014 factors reflected in its CPI score. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
Serbia struggles with political interference in key institutions, insufficient transparency in public spending, and clientelist networks that undermine meritocratic public appointments. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
War and institutional disruption complicate Ukraine\u2019s anti-corruption efforts, even as important reforms and anti-corruption bodies have been established; the war\u2019s pressures, illicit rent-seeking risks, and state capture concerns keep the score low. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
North Macedonia has improved in some governance areas, but persistent patronage, political influence over public administration, and loopholes in procurement continue to limit progress. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
Hungary\u2019s score is affected by concerns about weakening checks and balances, shrinking media freedom, political influence on public institutions and the judiciary, and opaque allocation of state resources. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
Albania faces entrenched patronage and corruption within public administration and judiciary weaknesses; transparency reforms are ongoing but governance gaps persist. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
Moldova\u2019s political instability and past high-profile graft scandals leave legacy vulnerabilities: weak oversight, problematic procurement, and elite capture of state institutions. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
Bulgaria continues to confront issues with judicial independence, influence in public procurement, and oligarchic networks that affect policymaking and enforcement \u2014 reflected in a below-midpoint CPI score. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
Kosovo\u2019s institutions are emerging but face significant corruption risks: weak public financial management, low administrative capacity, and political patronage are commonly cited concerns. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
Romania has mixed performance: anti-corruption courts and investigations have been strong at times, but backsliding in oversight, political challenge to independent institutions, and inconsistent enforcement affect the score. Recent domestic debates and legal changes continue to shape perceptions. images.transparencycdn.org+1<\/p>\n
Montenegro\u2019s small-state dynamics, concentrated economic interests, and weaknesses in procurement oversight and political transparency contribute to the country\u2019s modest CPI score. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
Malta\u2019s low absolute size contrasts with governance challenges highlighted in recent years relating to regulatory gaps, money laundering concerns, and the influence of private interests on public policy. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
Croatia\u2019s score reflects problems in public procurement transparency, occasional political influence in institutions, and enforcement gaps despite EU membership and reform pressures. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
Armenia \u2014 while making democratic strides at times \u2014 still faces issues of elite influence, weaknesses in regulatory systems and public administration, and vulnerabilities in procurement and public finance. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
Greece has been tackling long-standing governance and corruption challenges, but public sector inefficiencies, occasional clientelism, and enforcement gaps still hurt perceptions. Recent reforms aim to counteract these trends. images.transparencycdn.org<\/p>\n
Slovakia\u2019s ranking reflects ongoing concerns about political influence, the need for stronger independent oversight and anti-corruption enforcement, and vulnerabilities in public procurement.<\/p>\nWhat this list does \u2014 and what it doesn\u2019t<\/h1>\n
Why these countries score poorly (common drivers)<\/h1>\n