Hearing undertaken by European Commission in the frame of article 15 (3) third indent of the Council Regulation 168/2007

Die Anfrage wurde abgelehnt durch Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission.

Dear Secretariat General (SG),

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:

1. The documents and minutes related to the evaluation and hearing undertaken by European Commission in the frame of article 15 (3) third indent of the Council Regulation 168/2007 establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

2. The statement given by the Director of European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights before the competent committee of the European Commission, under the same legal framework as above.

3. The relevant documents related to the decision taken by European Commission vis-s-vis alleged cases of conflict of interest and misbehavior at European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

4. The Recommendation given by European Commission to hear the director of FRA in the frame of 15 (3) third indent of the Council Regulation 168/2007.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 11/04/2013.

We hereby acknowledge receipt of your application for access to documents, which was registered on 11/04/2013 under reference number GestDem 2013/1954.

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, your application will be handled within 15 working days.

The time limit will expire on 03/05/2013. In case this time limit needs to be extended, you will be informed in due course.

Yours faithfully,

Carlos Remis
SG.B.5.
Transparence.
Berl. 05/329.

Zitate anzeigen

Dear Secretariat General (SG),

I would like kindly to remind that the deadline for a reply was 2nd May 2013. I am at your disposal if additional clarifications are needed. Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Andreas Pavlou,

1 Attachment

[AsktheEU.org error. Message sent on 03 May 2013]

Please find attached a reply to correspondence with the European
Commission.
Kind regards,
*The Secretariat
***

*European Commission
*Directorate General Justice
Unit C1 - Fundamental Rights and Rights of the Child
Office: Rue Montoyer, 59 5/075, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
Mail address: European Commission – DG JUST/C1 - MO59 05/075
B-1049 Brussels - Belgium
E-mails:___JUST-CHAP-C1@ec.europa.eu_ <mailto:[email address]>

Dear Justice (JUST),

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:

Following recommendation specified in par. 2 of EC letterJUST/Cl/JD/vf/l 109542s sent via Asktheeu organization
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r... I hereby submit my new request to access the Evaluation Report by
European Commission for the extension of the FRA Director`s term of office.

1. From the link you provided to me at the end of your letter I understand that the European Commission took already its decision to extend the FRA Director`s term of office so the Evaluation Report is finalized and necessarily was used for the well informed decision taken by European Commission. I request access to this Evaluation Report used by the EC Hierarchy mentioned in the link provided to me and accessible easier form here:
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/... (Minutes of the 2041st meeting of the Commission held in Brussels
(Berlaymont) on Wednesday 10 April 2013)

Paragraph 7.2 of the Minutes read as follows:

"Having noted the procedure followed as set out in point 2 of PERS(2013) 64/2, the Commission, on a proposal from Mr ŠEFČOVIČ, in agreement with the PRESIDENT and Ms REDING, decided to extend for three years with effect from 1 June 2013 the term of office of Mr Morten KJAERUM as Executive Director of the European Union Agency
for Fundamental Rights, and asked Ms REDING to communicate this decision to the Agency’s management board. This decision would take effect immediately".

My understanding is that in accordance to Article 12(6) (c) of Council Regulation 168/2007 the final decision is to be taken by Management Board of FRA and only then can take effect. I request information if the term of office of FRA Director was already extended with immediate effect by Mr BARROSO, Ms REDING and Mr Mr ŠEFČOVIČ (see above), or that paragraph is to be understand as Proposal or Endorsement by Mr BARROSO, Ms REDING and Mr Mr
ŠEFČOVIČ?

This is not fully understandable and clear taking view that in your letter is written that the FRA Management Board meeting for this purpose will take place on 22-24 May 2013.Therefore I request information if the par 7.2 of the Minutes is a DECISION or a PROPOSAL/recommendation?

2. In addition I request relevant information and documents related to point 3 of your letter JUST/Cl/JD/vf/l 109542s stored in asktheeu website.

a) I particularly refer to the alleged misbehavior and conflict of interest raised in Judgment F-58/10
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/do...
in relation to FRA Director and the Investigator appointed by the FRA Director to conduct the respective administrative inquiry at FRA (see par. 77, 52, 57, 63, 64) and the persons identified as Mr
M and Mr A in that Judgment (if the respective Judgment was part of evaluation process and if it was considered for the Evaluation Report drafted by EC).

b) I also refer to Parliamentary Question E-002422/2012 accessible from here :
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getD...
and request information if European Commission scrutinized the mentioned alleged fraud happened under the tenure of the current Director of FRA when he served as Director at Danish Institute for Human Rights / IMR and whose mandate was extended or is to be extended (i.e. if this aspect was considered for the EC Evaluation
Report). I request information and relevant documents if there was a checking by specialized EU bodies of the accounts of Danish Institute for Human Rights and of FRA and which the outcome was.

c) From the Judgment F-58/10 I understand that Danish Institute for Human Rights (IMR in the Judgment) is a quite big contractor of FRA (only one contract is of 500 000 Euro - see p. 61). From the website asktheeu I found out that European Commission awarded several grants to Danish Institute for Human Rights amounted to
millions of Euro, as follows:
- Grant ref. JUST/2009/FRAC/AG/1279 - 994.775,16 EUR
- Grant ref. JUST/2012/PROG/AG/3720 - 117.966,25 EUR
- Grant ref. JUST/2011/PROG/AG/1909 - 221.813,66 EUR
- Grant ref. JUST/2007/FRAC/AG/0019/1 - 425.019,00 EUR
- Grant ref. JUST/2008/FRAC/AG/1226 - 498.915,32 EUR
- Grant ref. JUST/2010/PROG/AG/534/D4 - 239.999,66 EUR
In EC FTS system there are some more grants awarded to IMR by other departments of European Commission than DG Justice.

I request relevant information and documents showing if the alleged fraud in accounts of IMR was settled and the grants and contracts awarded to IMR were concluded and awarded in accordance to provision of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 and Commission Delegated Regulation C(2012)7507, regulations which require that
all bidders provide accurate financial documents in order to be admitted in competition for awarding grants (particularly I request information if this aspect was taken into account for the Evaluation Report on FRA director performed by EC and related decision to extend his term of office).

3. I also request relevant information and documents related to misbehavior and conflict of interest mentioned in European Parliament Budgetary Discharge Report P7_TA-PROV(2013)0162 under
this link http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/a...
at par. 5, 6, 7, 8, and relevant information if European Commission considered it for the Evaluation Report on FRA Director extensionof term of office and implicitly for the Final Decision taken by Mr BARROSO, Ms REDING and Mr Mr ŠEFČOVIČ.

4. I request information on how many cases were identified at FRA by European Commission with the occasion of drafting its Evaluation Report for the extension mandate of FRA Director? (I refer to cases before the EU Courts, EU Ombudsman and other EU institutions, if applicable, and to eventually internally ongoing cases at FRA level).

Additionally I request information as to why these cases appear at FRA and if European Commission analyzed them when took its decision to extend the mandate of the FRA Director. I ask these information in the light of article 15 (1) second indent of Council Regulation 168/2007 (i.e.director`s skills to manage its staff and conflict resolution). Who generate these cases at FRA and why?

In the Judgment F-58/10 is mentioned that at FRA was identified an "intense atmosphere of fear". I request relevant information on who is responsible of that "intense atmosphere of fear" and if the fear come already to an end.

This particular request is to be transmitted to the relevant hierarchy in charge with the Fundamental Rights in the EU. Is quite strange and of great public concern that at an EU Agency for Fundamental Rights was identified an "intense atmosphere of fear". Therefore I request to access relevant documents and information. Who created the fear? Who maintained it?

5. Finally, I request relevant information and access to the related reports on the two particular cases mentioned in point 8 of European Parliament Budgetary Discharge Report P7_TA-PROV(2013)0162 (i.e. Report of OLAF and Report of EU Ombudsman). If this part of my request is not within your competence I kindly ask to transmit
it to competent authorities, possibility envisaged in the Code of Good Administrative Behavior applicable to EU staff and EU hierarchy.

6. The letter you kindly sent me via asktheeu website is signed by Ms Salla Saastamoinen. I see in the FRA website
http://fra.europa.eu/en/about-fra/struct... that Ms Salla Saastamoinen is also member of FRA Management Board.

As there is no possibility to identify in FRA website via CV or Declaration of conflict of interest if Ms Salla Saastamoinen is the same person who signed the letter JUST/Cl/JD/vf/l 109542s stored in asktheu website, assuming that is the same person, I request relevant information if this letter was signed in both qualities of
Ms Salla Saastamoinen : as Head of Unit at European Commission and in the same time as Member of FRA Management Board. I would appreciate relevant information as to the potential conflict of interest, because the EU Agencies are independent EU bodies. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Kurt Weiss

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

For your attention, please find attached a letter signed by Director P.
Kneuer.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

                                                                                               

                                                                 European
Commission

                                                                 DG OLAF

                                                                 Unit C.4-
Legal advice

 

 

Dear Mr Giovanni Kesller,

Thank you for your reply and the 4 annexes about 4 cases opened and closed at Fundamental Rights Agency Vienna, Austria, accessible from here:

http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r...

The content of your reply triggers a new request for information and naturally, a confirmatory application.

1. Confirmatory application: On the basis of applicable legislation I request full access to the report in question and therefore kindly ask you to review your decision visible in the link above.
I request public submission of OLAF Report (in full, with names of the alleged perpetrators) via the same website you replied to me (i.e. ASKTHEEU.ORG based in Spain&Netherlands (organization and server), therefore within EU borders. I base my request on the following principle of law emerged from the case law invoked in this link http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/eu_fu...

This principle reads:
““In accordance to p. 165 of Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 May 2007 in Case F-23/05: “it has to be recognized that a culture of accountability has grown up within the Community institutions, responding in particular to the concern of the public to be informed and assured that malfunctions and frauds are identified and, as appropriate, duly eliminated and punished. The consequence of that requirement is that officials and other servants who hold posts of responsibility within an administration such as the Commission must take into account the possible existence of a justified need to communicate a degree of information to the public””

2. Request for Information :
Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:

A) OLAF Report OF/ 2007/ 0488 on FRA Recruitment. For full identification, please refer to the four annexes appended to your letter http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r...

B) OLAF Report OF/ 2010/ 0711 on FRA Procurement. For identification: as above.

C) OLAF Report OF/ 2011/ 0573 on FRA Mismanagement. For identification: as above.

D) OLAF Report OF/ 2013/ 0328 on FRA Forgery of document. For identification: as above.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

Please find herewith a note signed by Martin Wasmeier, Head of Unit of
Legal Advice for you information.

 

Best regards,

 

 

  [1]cid:image001.png@01CE1437.0F722A20

European Commission

DG OLAF

Unit C.4- Legal advice

 

 

 

References

Visible links

Dear Secretariat General (SG), Mr Wasmeier,

Thank you for your reply and notification on extension of deadline. This is all right.

As to the clarification requested:

Point 5 of my original request (above) was formulated as follows:

"5. Finally, I request relevant information and access to the related reports on the two particular cases mentioned in point 8 of European Parliament Budgetary Discharge Report P7_TA-PROV(2013)0162
(i.e. Report of OLAF and Report of EU Ombudsman). If this part of my request is not within your competence I kindly ask to transmit it to competent authorities, possibility envisaged in the Code of Good Administrative Behavior applicable to EU staff and EU
hierarchy".

Therefore the understanding should be that, among other issues, my confirmatory application refers also to OLAF Report drafted following the investigation mentioned by European Parliament in point 8 of EP Budgetary Discharge Report P7_TA-PROV(2013)0162.

In that EP BD Report one investigation refers to OLAF and one to Ombudsman. My assumption is that there was an OLAF investigation if EP mentioned it in its BD Report. I confirm that I referred to the respective OLAF Report. If I can give a bit of hand, this link could provide some more clarification as this could be the investigation in question:
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/452/r...

Here you can find also the Budgetary Discharge Report P7_TA-PROV(2013)0162:
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/heari...

Would be possible to confirm if OLAF scrutinized also this case at FRA http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/459/r...
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/459/r...
Rest of details in my request remains unchanged. Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Weiss,

Thank you for your e-mail of 24 June 2013 by which you, at point 2,
request:

"access to all correspondence, minutes and logs of phone calls and
relevant information in relation to forgery of a document by an
unidentified author from Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA). Identification
details here

 

[1]http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r...

 

 

(Case OF/2013/0328 “forgery of a document”)."

 

OLAF has been asked to respond to this request, which we interpret as an
initial application for access to documents under Regulation No 1049/2001.

Your initial application will be dealt with as quickly as possible. 
However, in view of the complexity of the case and of the necessary
preliminary verification on whether OLAF is in possession of documents
that would correspond to the description given in your application, we
have to extend the prescribed period by 15 additional working days before
we can provide you with a reply.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

                                                                                               

                                                                 European
Commission

                                                                 DG OLAF

                                                                 Unit C.4-
Legal advice

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r...

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

Please find herewith a note with annex signed by our director Ms Kneuer
for your information

 

 

Best regards,

 

  [1]cid:image001.png@01CE1437.0F722A20

European Commission

DG OLAF

Unit C.4- Legal advice

 

 

References

Visible links

Dear Secretariat General (SG), Dear Mr Kessler,

I will make an confirmatory application in due time, but in order to proceed ahead with it, I have a request for clarification.

Would be possible to confirm that OLAF investigation OF/2007/0488 was closed with no follow up?.

I ask this question because:

1) The OLAF Report has 12 of 12 pages but the last page of the Report, where is written that "OLAF recommends closing the case with any follow up" is numbered as page 10 of 10. Could you please confirm that the page 10 is indeed integral part from OLAF Report OF/2007/0488 and was not annexed by mistake to this Report?

2) I ask for this confirmation also due to the content of the Report, which shows such facts that would fully justify not only follow up but some radical measures. At this stage I would refer only to points 28 to 30 of the Report, where OLAF clearly acknowledges a serious irregularity found at FRA, namely using by some FRA employees a more generous Annex for obtaining personal benefits (allowances). As OLAF wrote in its Report, that Annex is reserved to officials serving in third countries. Austria, where FRA is based, is not such a country.

In order to properly formulate my Confirmatory application, particularly the point on "overriding the public interest", may I kindly ask you to confirm if the person(s) against whom was launched OLAF investigation OF/2007/0488 and who used irregularly an Annex for obtaining undue amounts, still serves in any of the EU institutions or bodies? I am aware about the privacy and data protection issues, but I request a general reply and not to nominate the specific EU institution. Such general replies are allowed by Regulation 1049. Thank you very much.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Dear Secretariat General (SG),

Dear Mr Giovanni Kessler,

In order to comply with the deadline, I already present my confirmatory application and respectfully ask to review your decision dated 24 July 2013. I am still awaiting a response to my email of 28 July 2013 accessible from here: http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/heari...

Upon your response to my email of 28 July 2013 I will send a supplementary part to my present confirmatory application (addressing as well your reply and eventually the content of the two missing pages from OLAF report).

Now I understand that because of dismissal, two cases have no report drafted (so there is no document to access). However I renew my request to access Report on FRA Mismanagement, listed in my initial application.

Providing that this request from Access Info Europe http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/684/r... apparently refers to the same OLAF report, if this access will be granted within this request, I will follow that link. In this case, there will be no object for a part of my confirmatory application.

Related to the OLAF report on EUMC recruitments, disclosed to the public domain here: http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r...
Within the meaning of Regulation on access to documents, I respectfully request an extension of the readable area. There are many sections and words covered in this Report which apparently are or could be not in line with the intention of the legislator and provisions of Regulation 2001/1049.

As provisional arguments for this request for extension of readable area:
I see that respective Report titled “EUMC recruitment”, deals also with several other sensitive issues (procurement easy spending, poor management, recruitments not in line with EU law, with staff regulation, with Court of Auditors instructions, with European Commission IAS instructions, misusing provisions of law – misuse of an annex, part of EU Legislation, (i.e Staff regulation) in an irregular way in order to obtain higher financial benefits, some others grave problems like non-cooperation of a contractor with OLAF, which started to implement the contact before having a contract signed and afterwards asked for modification of the contract. “EUMC recruitment” OLAF Report reveals a lot of not understandable problems: For example I do not understand the then attitude of OLAF (being so gentle on leaving an obvious irregularity unpunished, on providing strange justifications and even praising (see par. 42) for an irregular transfer of funds from one year to the next.) The EU financial regulations require strict conditions in order to make such transfers of funds from one year to the next. One of these obligatory conditions is to have a signed contract in place. OLAF itself discovered that there was no contract in place at the moment of the commencement of the work, no signature in due time and before transfer, no cooperation from the contractor side, an irregular commencement of the work by the contractor, etc.

Taking view to all these issues which raises legitimate questions, I request an extended disclosure of the OLAF report “EUMC recruitment” and an appropriate disclosure, in line with Council Regulation 1049, of the OLAF report named “FRA mismanagement”. There are consistent jurisprudence which allows OLAF to make such disclosure even inspections and audits are ongoing. This is all the more justified as apparently the OLAF inspections and audits invoked in decision of 24 July 2013 had ceased and the case was closed without recommendation. See the reply from European Parliament – Budgetary Committee`s President, published in asktheeu website.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

Further to our e-mail below of 12 July 2013, we wish to inform you that we
are in the process of preparing a response to your initial application for
access to documents.  However, in view of a reduction in staff during the
summer holidays and the complexity of the case, we wish to inform you that
we will need 10 additional working days from today to provide you with our
response.

 

Thank you for your understanding in this matter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Maya IVANOVA (OLAF) On Behalf Of WASMEIER Martin (OLAF)

 

[1]cid:image001.png@01CE1437.0F722A20

European Commission

DG OLAF

Unit C.4- Legal advice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: BACON Anke (OLAF) On Behalf Of WASMEIER Martin (OLAF)
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:37 AM
To: [2][FOI #453 email]
Subject: Your request to access to documents of 24 June 2013

 

Dear Mr Weiss,

Thank you for your e-mail of 24 June 2013 by which you, at point 2,
request:

"access to all correspondence, minutes and logs of phone calls and
relevant information in relation to forgery of a document by an
unidentified author from Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA). Identification
details here

 

[3]http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r...

 

 

(Case OF/2013/0328 “forgery of a document”)."

 

OLAF has been asked to respond to this request, which we interpret as an
initial application for access to documents under Regulation No 1049/2001.

Your initial application will be dealt with as quickly as possible. 
However, in view of the complexity of the case and of the necessary
preliminary verification on whether OLAF is in possession of documents
that would correspond to the description given in your application, we
have to extend the prescribed period by 15 additional working days before
we can provide you with a reply.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

                                                                                               

                                                                 European
Commission

                                                                 DG OLAF

                                                                 Unit C.4-
Legal advice

 

References

Visible links
2. mailto:[FOI #453 email]
3. http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r...

Kurt Weiss hat eine Nachricht hinterlassen ()

Deadline = 04/09/2013

Dear Ms Ivanova,

Thank you for your reply. I look forward to hearing from you, and to receiving the outstanding response.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

Further to your e-mail of 7 August 2013 requesting a review of OLAF's
decision dated 24 July 2013, we wish to inform you that we are in the
process of preparing a response.  However, in view of a reduction in staff
during the summer holidays and the complexity of the case, we wish to
inform you that we will need 15 additional working days to provide you
with our response.

 

Thank you for your understanding in this matter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Maya IVANOVA (OLAF) On Behalf Of WASMEIER Martin (OLAF)

 

[1]cid:image001.png@01CE1437.0F722A20

European Commission

DG OLAF

Unit C.4- Legal advice

Head of Unit

Tel. +32-2-2958601

 

References

Visible links

Dear Secretariat General (SG), Dear OLAF,

I refer to my confirmatory application dated 7th August 2013 and a previous Request for clarifications, dated July 28, 2013 (on missing pages of OLAF report OF/2007/0488). I did not receive responses to these emails.
By this email I would like to remind you about these 2 pending replies and also that mentioned by your services above.

Please allow me to recall you about this paragraph of my confirmatory application:

"2) I ask for this confirmation also due to the content of the Report, which shows such facts that would fully justify not only follow up but some radical measures. At this stage I would refer
only to points 28 to 30 of the Report, where OLAF clearly acknowledges a serious irregularity found at FRA, namely using by some FRA employees a more generous Annex for obtaining personal benefits (allowances). As OLAF wrote in its Report, that Annex is reserved to officials serving in third countries. Austria, where FRA is based, is not such a country".

Last days FRA disclosed some documents which shows an apparent recurrence of similar facts. I launched a survey into the matter hoping to have a correct view on the facts. Would be possible to confirm or infirm if OLAF investigated in any of the 5 investigations mentioned in this website the recurrence of those facts. See details here http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/list_... in FRA response dated September 06, 2013.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

3 Attachments

 

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

Attached please find an e-mail and attachment which we attempted to send
yesterday to the e-mail address noted in your message of 24 June 2013, but
which was returned to us as undeliverable.

 

 

  [1]cid:image001.png@01CE1437.0F722A20

European Commission

DG OLAF

Unit C.4- Legal advice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: OLAF-FMB C4
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:44 PM
To: '[email address]'
Subject: Your request for access to documents of 24 June 2013,
OF/2013/0328, LA/762

 

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

Please find herewith a note from Mr PECORARO, head of Unit 0.1 for your
information.

 

 

 

 

[2]cid:image001.png@01CE1437.0F722A20

European Commission

DG OLAF

[3]http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/

 

 

References

Visible links
3. http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/

Dear Secretariat General (SG),

Mr Pecoraro,
Thank you for the letter of 11 September 2013 http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r...
I understand that OLAF needs “space to think”, as you write in second page of your letter but I have only a brief clarification - question. What means “Opinion on opening decision”? I understood from OLAF letter available here http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r... that Forgery case OF/2013/0328 was dismissed. In second page you mentioned about an ongoing OLAF selection procedure.
It appears that OLAF received a positive “Opinion on opening decision (OF/2013/0328 EU Staff/ FRA/ Forgery of document)”, see the last 2 paragraphs of page 2 of your letter, but that Opinion was rebutted and consequently OLAF dismissed the case “OF/2013/0328 EU Staff/ FRA/ Forgery of document”.

Is this within normal procedures at OLAF?. I mean, it happens frequently and if such rebuttal is a positive or negative indicator at OLAF.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Dear Secretariat General (SG),

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Secretariat General (SG)'s handling of my FOI request 'Hearing undertaken by European Commission in the frame of article 15 (3) third indent of the Council Regulation 168/2007'.

Dear Mr Kessler,

Following the letter of Mr Marco Pecoraro dated 11 September 2013 http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r... and his recommendation I hereunder submit a request for internal review.

*I would like to access, in a partial form, the Opinion of experts in case OF/2013/0328 - EU Staff/FRA/Forgery of a document, who advised you to open an investigation. I read Mr Pecoraro letter once again and I understood that this is what he wanted to say: that a team of experts advised you to open an investigation on forgery matters at FRA and that you rebutted their opinion. See your decision here at page 4 http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r...

**I also would like to access the Opinion of the second team of experts who advised you to rebut the Opinion of first team of experts. As forgery of documents represent very specialized matters, which requires specialized scientific knowledge, I suppose that you sought advice from many sources. I accept a partial access.

Based on Bavarian Lager case and Opinion by Advocate General - p. 46 - I would like to ask you to seek consent of the two teams of experts who advised you, to disclose to the public their specialist/scientific opinions (not names). Forgery at an EU agency is a very curious case. Please ask the experts to agree to this disclosure based also in other curios things which we discovered at FRA.

May I kindly remind you about OLAF pending reply on my confirmatory application on case 0488-FRA recruitments. And also about the missing pages in that OLAF report

http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r...

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/heari...

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Weiss,
 
We refer to (1) your first e-mail of 17 September 2013 to the Secretariat
General (SG) and Mr Marco Pecoraro and (2) your second e-mail of the same
date to the Secretariat General (SG) and Mr Kessler in which you request,
inter alia, clarification of OLAF's reply of 11 September 2013 to your
initial application for access to documents of 24 June 2013.
 
In your first e-mail you raised the following two questions:
 
"1.          What means “Opinion on opening decision”?
 
2.            It appears that OLAF received a positive “Opinion on opening
decision (OF/2013/0328 EU Staff/ FRA/ Forgery of document)”, see the last
2 paragraphs of page 2 of your letter,   but that Opinion was rebutted and
consequently OLAF dismissed the case “OF/2013/0328 EU Staff/ FRA/ Forgery
of document.  Is this within normal procedures at OLAF?"
 
In your second e-mail, you developed question 2 of your first e-mail.  You
also asked several additional questions which are not directly related to
OLAF's reply of 11 September 2013. 
 
We first provide you with clarification of OLAF's reply of 11 September
and then with a response to the additional questions that you raised in
your second e-mail.
 

I. Clarifications you requested on OLAF's reply of 11 September 2013

 
With respect to question 1 above, we kindly refer you to Article 5.3 of
OLAF's Instructions to Staff on Investigative Procedures
([1]http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/documents...).
 
With respect to question 2 above and the statements that you made in your
second e-mail, we clarify that we did not state anywhere in our letter
that OLAF received "a positive Opinion that was rebutted and consequently
OLAF dismissed the case" (neither did we state anywhere that there was a
team of experts that advised the Director-General of OLAF to open an
investigation and that the Director-General of OLAF rebutted their
opinion, or that there was a "second team of experts" who advised him to
rebut the opinion of the first ).
 
With respect to question 2, we also kindly refer you to Article 5.5 of
OLAF's Instructions to Staff on Investigative Procedures.
 
In view of the fact that you were seeking clarifications on our reply to
your initial application for access to documents of 18 June 2013, which
you have now received, we assume that the period of 15 days for filing a
confirmatory application under Regulation No 1049/2001 commences today.
 

II. Responses to the additional questions that you raised in your second
e-mail

 
1.            You request for "an internal review of Secretariat General's
(SG)'s handling of my FOI request 'Hearing undertaken by European
           Commission in the frame of article 15(3) third indent of the
Council Regulation 168/2001'."
 
                As DG JUST is competent for matters relating to the Agency
for Fundamental Rights, we will forward this request to DG JUST and ask
them to respond to you directly.
 
2              You remind OLAF of our "pending reply on my confirmatory
application on case 0488-FRA recruitments.  And also about the missing
pages in the OLAF report"
 
On 24 July 2013, OLAF provided you with partial access to OLAF's Final
Case Report OF/2007/0488.  On 7 August you made a confirmatory application
for review of OLAF's letter of 24 July 2013.  You also asked several
questions regarding OLAF's Final Case Report OF/2007/0488.  On 30 August
2013, OLAF informed you that we will need 15 additional working days (i.e.
until Friday, 20 September 2013) to provide you with our response to your
e-mail dated 7 August.  Our confirmatory reply will be sent to you as soon
as possible.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
 
Martin Wasmeier
 
  
European Commission
DG OLAF
Unit C.4- Legal advice
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

References

Visible links
1. http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/documents...

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

Please find herewith a note from our Director-General Mr Kessler for your
information.

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

  [1]cid:image001.png@01CE1437.0F722A20

European Commission

DG OLAF

Unit C.4- Legal advice

 

 

 

References

Visible links

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

3 Attachments

  • Attachment

    Picture Device Independent Bitmap 1.jpg

    1K Download

  • Attachment

    FW Reply to your request addressed to the European Commission Ares 2013 2847888 Ref.Gestdem 2013 1954.html

    37K Download

  • Attachment

    image001.jpg

    1K Download

Dear Mr Weiss,
 
I refer to your e-mail of 17/09/2013, copied below concerning your initial
application for access to documents Gestdem 2013/1954.
 
As the initial reply from DG JUST was sent to you on 07/08/2013, the
deadline for introducing a confirmatory application to the Secretariat
General of the Commission expired on 29/08/2013. Therefore, I regret to
inform you that we cannot register your request as a confirmatory
application.
 
This also seems in line with the indications given by you in your reply to
the letter from DG JUST (cf the annexed documents), through which you
indicated that you did not intend to introduce a confirmatory request.
However, we have forwarded your request to DG JUST, so that they can
register it as a new initial application if appropriate.
 
Kind regards,
 
Carlos Remis
SG.B.5.
Transparence.
Berl. 05/329.
 
 

Zitate anzeigen

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

Please find herewith a note from our Director Ms Kneuer for your
information.

 

Best regards,

 

 

  [1]cid:image001.png@01CE1437.0F722A20

European Commission

DG OLAF

Unit C.4- Legal advice

 

 

 

 

 

References

Visible links

Dear Secretariat General (SG),

Dear Mrs Kneuer,
Thank you for your letter http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r...
With respect to your clarification provided in last paragraph of page 1, namely that the Final Case Report does not state that there was a serious irregularity at FRA:
- The reference is made to the misusing by some employees based in an EU country (Austria) of provisions of law applicable to third countries, in order to benefit of more favorable conditions for obtaining some specific allowances.

May I kindly ask you to grant me access to relevant OLAF rules or internal documents which contain the thresholds (limits in amounts) from which an irregularity is considered serious by OLAF? Could OLAF disclose which was the amount paid without legal justification and in addition to FRA employees following that wrong use of provisions of law? Are there some thresholds applicable to recovery of amounts paid wrongly from the European Union budget in conditions as those identified by OLAF at FRA? (and considered by OLAF not high enough to warrant a follow up to the investigation).
I raise these additional requests because in question are public money; some other agencies could interpret the last paragraph of page 1 of your letter as there is certain flexibility in using more favorable provisions of law in not justified conditions - to obtain higher allowances.

In respect to the last paragraph of your letter: taking view to your clarifications dated 26/09/2013 I assume that there is no legal possibility for overlooking this temporal sequence. Therefore, indeed the confirmatory application commences at the date mentioned in your letter. Thank you in advance for taking into consideration as well the new requests above, triggered by your last reply.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Dear Mr Carlos Remis, Dear Ms Le Bail,

I refer to your email of 26 September 2013.
Apparently you forgot to annex the Reply of Ms Francoise Le Bail – Director General. I referred that I will not submit confirmatory application in respect of the content of Letter of Ms Le Bail (on protection of privacy of Mr Morten Kjaerum CDRs for his mandate renewal|). But this is not the case for the parts of my Requests allocated to OLAF to deal with.
Having regard to the above and in line with the spirit of correctness, fairness and full transparency may I kindly ask you to publish also the Reply of Ms LEBAIL with ref.
JUST/Cl/JD/vh/ 2946535s in asktheeu website. As you might be aware, I proposed EC to have a transparent and public communication taking view to the subject in question, but EC wanted to do it privately, via e-mail. I accepted and sent the respective communications via email, as requested by European Commission/ DG Justice, Ms Le Bail`s services, in order to protect privacy of CDRs of Mr Morten Kjaerum. But I see now that you published only my communications and not also the Letter of Ms Francoise Le Bail JUST/Cl/JD/vh/ 2946535s. I respectfully ask to publish also this letter in asktheeu website. I confirm that there will be no confirmatory application for this part of my request (CDRs) but respectfully ask the publication of Ms Lebail letter JUST/Cl/JD/vh/ 2946535s.

Finally, I would like to request access to EC/SG Rules of Dealing with Requests to access documents via public channel and via private channel. When a Request to access documents is to be treated publicly and when privately? Which are the exceptions for the EU Institutions as EC to not publish its communication but only to publish the Requester communications in public channel (after EC requested to use private channel). Apparently the equal treatment is not applied for both parties and I would like to access relevant documents to understand why this happened in respect to my Request.

Thank you very much.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Dear Mr Carlos Remis, Dear Ms Lebail,

The related links ref. your email of 26 September 2013 are:
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/2041s...
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/2041s...

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Dear Mr Martin Wasmeier,
Thank you for your Reply of 20 September 2013.
I absence of any document disclosed at least partially and in absence of clear information I wrote in my emails what I understood. Reading in OLAF letter this fragment ““Opinion on opening decision (OF/2013/0328 EU Staff/ FRA/ Forgery of document)”” the only assumption I could made was that there was a positive opinion from some experts, otherwise OLAF would have wrote ““Opinion on DISSMISAL decision (OF/2013/0328 EU Staff/ FRA/ Forgery of document)””.
Indeed your services did not write clearly whether it was about a positive opinion or negative opinion. May I kindly ask you to provide me access to this piece of information?
I read the OLAF's Instructions to Staff on Investigative Procedures and from the text in question I understand that a special division of OLAF has to provide to Director General an opinion, positive or negative. Then Director General takes a decision. My assumption was that that decision relies on a second opinion as there could be that Director General is not specialized in forgery issues. This is why I wrote about the rebuttal of opinions.

I confirm that period of 15 days for filing a confirmatory application under Regulation No 1049/2001 commences on the date you mentioned. As you know, I already filled it, but due to the delay of the response on missing pages of OLAF Report, the Confirmatory application was put on waiting line. I received Reply on that aspect from Ms Kneuer; she provided me the requested clarifications therefore my confirmatory application has now conditions to be processed.
On your point II – that was a part allocated to DG Justice and not OLAF, ref. CDRs of Mr Morten Kjaerum. I wrote to Ms Lebail privately that I will not make a confirmatory application on that issue. Her services published my private email but not also Ms Lebail letter. I requested to observe relevant principles (equal treatment, fairness, etc) and to publish also Ms Lebail Letter. See also my reply to her available in asktheeu website.
There was confusion between the Requests allocated to be dealt by OLAF and Request allocated to be dealt by SG, DG Justice.
As to the Requests allocated to OLAF:
Currently there is a pending reply on FRA recruitments, extension of readable area, etc. See full content of my Request in asktheeu website.
I hope that this email clarifies somehow the confusion or misunderstanding.
Thank you in advance for dealing with my confirmatory application.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

David Nicholson hat eine Nachricht hinterlassen ()

New Parliamentary questions http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getD...

inserted below for a facile reading

“Question for written answer E-007475/2013 to the Commission
Rule 117

Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE) and Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)
Subject: Conflict of interest - Danish Institute of Human Rights
1. The Danish Institute of Human Rights (DIHR) saw its funding cut by the Danish authorities after ‘irregularities’ had been found. The director in charge at the time the irregularities occurred is now working for an EU agency. The Danish authorities cancelled their support to the DIHR; the EU agency is still funding it.
(a) Has the Commission evaluated the financial transactions from this agency to the DIHR?
(b) Have irregularities been found?
(c) What action has been taken?
(d) Have funds been recovered? If so, what amount?
2. Management board members are leading staff of organisations that receive(d) grants or other financial support from the agency in question.
(a) How are these conflicts of interest managed?
(b) Have those members been involved in the process of granting funding to their organisations?
3. In the past there have been European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) cases involving agency staff in response to allegations that documents had been backdated, that staff had been mobbed and that the agency had not complied with existing rules on recruitment procedures.
(a) What was the result of these investigations?
(b) Could the Commission provide Parliament with the recommendations that OLAF issued?
(c) If there were no recommendations, could the Commission provide Parliament with a justification?
(d) What measures have been taken by the agency to prevent harassment, mobbing, etc.?
(e) Has any action been taken in response to incidents of harassment of staff members by other employees?
4. Are there any court cases pending against this agency? How many? What is the substance of these cases?
5. Who is bearing the costs of legal representation for staff of the agency before the courts? In which cases?
6. Could the Commission or the agency give details on the poem competition in 2010? How many people participated? How much money was spent?”

http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/mep_m...

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

2 Attachments

  • Attachment

    Re Your e mails dated 28 July 2013 and 7 August 2013 OF 2007 0488 LA 811.txt

    2K Download View as HTML

  • Attachment

    Re Your e mails dated 28 July 2013 and 7 August 2013 OF 2007 0488 LA 811.txt

    1K Download View as HTML

 
Dear Mr Weiss,
 
On 29 September 2013, you sent 4 e-mails to the "OLAF-FMB C4" electronic
mailbox regarding "Your e-mails dated 28 July 2013 and 7 August 2013,
OF/2007/0488, LA 811" including the 2 e-mails attached hereto which are
addressed to Mr Carlos Remis, who works in the Secretariat General of the
European Commission, and Ms Le Bail, Director General of DG JUSTICE.
 
It appears that you may have inadvertently sent these 2 e-mails to OLAF by
responding to an e-mail that OLAF recently sent you.  If this is correct,
we would invite you to send the e-mails directly to the intended addresses
with a relevant subject matter for each e-mail. 
 
Sincerely,
 
 
 

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

1 Attachment

 

 

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

Further to your e-mail of 27 September 2013, we wish to inform you that we
are in the process of preparing a response to your request.  However, in
view of the complexity of the case, we wish to inform you that we will
need 15 additional working days to provide you with our response.

 

Thank you for your understanding in this matter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

On Behalf Of WASMEIER Martin (OLAF)

 

[1]cid:image001.png@01CE1437.0F722A20

European Commission

DG OLAF

Unit C.4- Legal advice

 

 

 

 

 

References

Visible links

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Weiss,
 
Further to your confirmatory application of 29 September 2013 regarding
the above-referenced OLAF Report, we wish to inform you that your
application is currently being handled.  However, OLAF will not be in a
position to complete the handling of your application within the time
limit of 15 working days.  An extended time limit is needed as other
Commission services must be consulted.
 
We must therefore extend the time limit by 15 additional working days in
accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding
public access to documents.
 
Thank you for your understanding in this matter.
 
Sincerely,
 
  
European Commission
DG OLAF
Unit C.4- Legal advice
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

We refer to your e-mail of 29 September 2013 in which you asked OLAF
whether the opinion issued in OF/2013/0328 was negative or positive.  For
the reasons mentioned in our letter to you of 11 September 2013, we regret
that OLAF cannot provide you with that information.

 

Sincerely

Marco Pecoraro

 

Marco  PECORARO
Head of unit 01

------------------------------------

European Commission

European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)

Office: J30 14/03
Phone: +32 2 29 51350

E-mail: [1][email address]

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Secretariat General (SG) and OLAF,

I take note that my confirmatory application of 29 September 2013 was delayed / postponed because OLAF has to consult European Commission services. I understand that the duration of postponement is 15 days from first OLAF notification dated 21 October 2013. There was one additional notification by OLAF dated 18 October 2013.

I summarize below the pending replies awaited from OLAF, following my emails to Mrs Kneuer, Mr Pecoraro and Mr Wasmeier (see asktheeu website):

a. Question no 1: I requested “OLAF rules or internal documents which contain the thresholds (limits in amounts) from which an irregularity is considered serious by OLAF”.

I launched this question/clarification as OLAF Director – Mrs Kneuer stated that what was found at FRA was not serious irregularity.

b. Answer to question no 2: “Are there some thresholds applicable to recovery of amounts paid wrongly from the European Union budget in conditions as those identified by OLAF at FRA? (and considered by OLAF not high enough to warrant a follow up to the investigation)”.

c. Question no 3: “ Could OLAF disclose which was the amount paid without legal justification and in addition to FRA employees following that wrong use of
provisions of law?”

If Regulation 1049 allows that names of persons (perpetrators) being redacted, I believe that OLAF is not precluded by any rules to disclose the Amounts from taxpayers contribution to the European budget, misappropriated or misused by some employees of FRA.

I therefore particularly insist to have a response on this question. I kindly request Partial Access to OLAF page of the relevant Annex to the Report 0488 which contains the "Calculation fiche", i.e total amount misused and breakdown of amounts misused by each employee in part.

I would like to access some relevant information, i.e. if OLAF is aware about what happened next, if FRA Management Board took some measures, if European commission people sent by Commission to FRA to sit as FRA members reacted in any way. There were 4 or 5 cases at FRA which OLAF dealt with during the time, since 2007. The list was disclosed by OLAF in this website. Are there any similar issues occurred at FRA recurrently? I understand from all OLAF letters published in this website to different Requesters that OLAF dismissed all those FRA cases with no follow up. I would appreciate some more details what that means “case dismissed with no follow up”. My understanding is that “all in all or in overall” FRA was not found faulty for any of facts. Is my understanding correct?

On E-mail from Mr Pecoraro / 24 Oct 2013: “whether the opinion issued in OF/2013/0328 was negative or positive”:

May I kindly ask you to reconsider this rejection or alternatively to provide a motivation on how Regulation 1049 precludes OLAF to provide a simple and short response, which does not affect any of exception listed in article 4 to regulation. The answer to question “whether the opinion issued in OF/2013/0328 was negative or positive” could be only "positive" or "negative". I would appreciate such reconsideration or at least a clear indication of particular&SPECIFIC provision of law which preclude OLAF to provide the response (i.e. "the opinion was negative" or "the opinion was positive"). Thank you very much.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

Please find herewith a note from our director Ms Petra Kneuer for your
information.

 

Best regards,

 

  [1]cid:image001.png@01CE1437.0F722A20

European Commission

DG OLAF

Unit C.4- Legal advice

 

 

 

References

Visible links

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

1 Attachment

As said, on the FR Agency:

please always inform Heather so that she can put ths on the list of
requests regarding the FRAgency

 

Martin

From: OLAF-FMB C4
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 4:55 PM
To: [FOI #453 email]
Cc: KNEUER Petra (OLAF)
Subject: Mr Weiss -Your e-mails dated 27 September 2013 and 25 October
2013, OF/2007/0488, LJAM 897

 

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

Please find herewith a note from our director Ms Petra Kneuer for your
information.

 

Best regards,

 

  [1]cid:image001.png@01CE1437.0F722A20

European Commission

DG OLAF

Unit C.4- Legal advice

 

 

 

References

Visible links

Dear Secretariat General and Madame Kneuer,
Thank you for your letter. According to Article 1 (1) of Regulation 1049/2001 “Beneficiaries of the Union and natural or legal persons residing or having their registered office in a Member State shall exercise their right of access to Commission documents under Article 255(1) of the Treaty and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in accordance with these detailed rules. This right of access concerns documents held by the Commission, that is to say, documents drawn up or received by it and in its possession”.
Article 1(2) 2 provides that “The institutions may, subject to the same principles, conditions and limits, grant access to documents to any natural or legal person not residing or not having its registered office in a Member State”.
The same principles are reiterated in the European Commission Decision mentioned by you. I am writing to obtain detailed rules as to the modalities and applicable law for collecting identity acts from the requesters which use their right to access documents via websites as this one, Privacy Statement for processing originals and copies of id documents, the modalities in which the originals of identity acts will be returned to requesters, the modalities for storage of copies from id acts, number of years, possibility of sending id acts by surface mail, e-mail, other relevant details. These details are not listed in European Commission Decision cited in your letter therefore I write this additional request for clarifications in order to ascertain if my rights are observed as envisaged in rules, legislation and relevant precedents. I would appreciate receiving an internet link to such precedents. Thanks.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

Please find herewith a note from our Director-General Mr Kessler for your
information.

 

Best regards,

 

  [1]cid:image001.png@01CE1437.0F722A20

European Commission

DG OLAF

Unit C.4- Legal advice

 

 

 

 

References

Visible links

Generalsekretariat der Europäischen Kommission

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Weiss,

 

Please find herewith a letter from our director Ms Petra Kneuer for your
information.

 

Best regards,

 

  [1]cid:image001.png@01CE1437.0F722A20

European Commission

DG OLAF

Unit C.4- Legal advice

 

 

 

References

Visible links

Madame Kneuer,
Thank you for your letter dated 02/12/2013.
Please be informed that I received on 28/11/2013 a response on my confirmatory application from Mr G. Kessler - http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/453/r.... In such conditions your additional requirements transmitted on 02/12/2013 are devoid of purpose. Anyway I could not find in your letter the link with similar requirements and applicable internal rules of OLAF.
Thank you for any additional details you can release.

Yours faithfully,

Kurt Weiss