False informations from the European Ombudsman's office.

Patryk Wysocki made this access to documents request to European Ombudsman

Response to this request is delayed. By law, European Ombudsman should normally have responded promptly and by (details)

From: Patryk Wysocki

Delivered

Dear European Ombudsman,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which were sent from the European Commission to me and contain the following informations:
- the phrase "IRREGULARITIES IN THE ELECTIONS PROCESS"
- or one word "ELECTIONS"

I have never received such documents from the Commission. I sent all the Commission's replies to the Ombudsman. Exactly, all three. So I hope that my request will not be difficult to explain.

--- the reasons ---
The Ombudsman wrote very clearly (12.12.2018):
„For few years you were in touch with the European Commission in connection with the alleged irregularities in the slections process in Poland that took place in 2012 and 2014. The Commission has consistently claimed that the issues raised in your correspondence are not related to the implementation of EU law and on this basis have decided not to take any further action.”

Unfortunately, this is NOT TRUE!
- The Commission NEVER USED the phrase "irregularities in the elections process".
- The Commission NEVER USED even the word "elections".

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION NEVER SAW ANY ELECTIVE TOPIC IN MY CORRESPONDENCE!
Because between 2012-2014, there WERE NO ELECTIONS IN POLAND!!

Two EU institutions evaluate the same information completly different. None of them wants to take action. It is interesting, is not it?

The phrase "irregularities in the elections process" has used by only two people around the world: one is the Head of Department at the European Ombudsman Offce and second is Mrs. Ombudsman. ONLY!
This Head of Department specifically invented this nonsense to close the case and hide big crimes and Mrs. Ombudsman just blankly repeats it.

So:
- if such documents exist, they were created, falsified in the Office of the European Ombudsman,
- if they do not exist, it must mean that Mrs. Ombudsman believes on "words" to hers inferiors and they do not even have to falsify any documents to effectively lie and manipulate the European Ombudsman as a child.

I have previously complained to this Head of Department on 12.09.2018 and by asktheeu.org (https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/no_i...
For example:
- facts manipulation,
- distorts and violates European Union law,
- trying to hide mistakes and abuses that have become in the European Commission.
- and many more.

But Mrs. Ombudsman does not want to see any problems, you have never made any inquiries and you still allow him to continue to make decisions on behalf of the European Ombudsman.

Please Mrs. Ombudsman answer here on asktheeu.org, in public, in Polish and English.

Please confirm that you have received my request for access to documents and the register date of my request.

Yours faithfully,
Patryk Wysocki

---------- Wersja polska -------- Polish version ---------
Szanowna Pani Europejski Rzecznik,

Zgodnie z prawem dostępu do dokumentów w traktatach UE, jak i zgodnie z rozporządzeniem 1049/2001, proszę o dokumenty, które były wysłane z Komisji Europejskiej do mnie i zawierają poniższe informacje:
- frazę „NIEPRAWIDŁOWOŚCI W PROCESIE WYBORCZYM”
- lub jedno słowo „WYBORY”
Takich dokumentów nigdy nie odebrałem od Komisji. Wszystkie odpowiedzi Komisji przesłałem Pani Rzecznik. Dokładnie wszystkie trzy odpowiedzi. Wiec mam nadzieje, że mój wniosek nie będzie trudny do wyjaśnienia.

--- Uzasadnienie: ---
Pani Rzecznik napisała bardzo wyraźnie (12.12.2018):
„Przez kilka lat był Pan w kontakcie z Komisją Europejską w związku z domniemanymi nieprawidłowościami w procesie wyborczym w Polsce, które miały miejsce w 2012 i 2014 roku. Komisja konsekwentnie twierdziła, że kwestie poruszone w Pana korespondencji nie są związane z wdrażaniem prawa unijnego i na tej podstawie postanowiła nie podejmować żadnych dalszych działań.”

Niestety to nie jest prawda.
- Komisja NIGDY NIE UŻYŁA frazy „nieprawidłowości w procesie wyborczym”,
- Komisja NIGDY NIE UŻYŁA nawet słowa „wybory”.

KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA NIGDY NIE DOSTRZEGŁA ŻADNEGO TEMATU WYBORCZEGO W MOJEJ KORESPONDENCJI! Między 2012-2014 NIE BYŁO ŻADNYCH WYBORÓW W POLSCE!!

Dwie unijne instytucje całkowicie inaczej oceniają te same informacje. Żadna z nich nie chce podjąć działań. Ciekawe, prawda?

Frazy „nieprawidłowości w procesie wyborczym” używają tylko dwie osoby na całym świecie: jeden z Dyrektorów Działu w biurze Europejskiego Rzecznika i Pani Rzecznik. TYLKO!
Ten Dyrektor Działu specjalnie wymyślił tą bzdurę aby zamknąć sprawę i ukryć duże przestępstwa, a Pani Rzecznik tylko bezwiednie powtarza to.

Więc:
- jeśli takie dokumenty istnieją, to zostały stworzone, sfałszowane w Biurze Europejskiego Rzecznika,
- jeśli nie istnieją, to musi to znaczyć, że Pani Rzecznik wierzy na „słowo” swoim podwładnym i nie trzeba nawet fałszować żadnych dokumentów aby skutecznie okłamywać i manipulować Europejskim Rzecznikiem jak dzieckiem.

Skarżyłem się już wcześniej na tego Dyrektora Działu 12.09.2018 i asktheeu.org (https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/no_i...
- manipulacje faktami,
- przekłamuje i łamanie prawa Unii Europejskiej,
- próbuje ukryć błędy i nadużycia jakie stały się w Komisji Europejskiej,
- i wiele więcej.

Ale Pani Rzecznik nie chce zobaczyć w tym żadnego problemu, nigdy nie zrobiła żadnego śledztwa i pozwala mu wciąż kontynuować tworzenie decyzji w imieniu Europejskiego Rzecznika.

Proszę o odpowiedź Pani Rzecznik tutaj, publicznie, po polsku i po angielsku.

Proszę o potwierdzenie odbioru mojego wniosku o dostęp do dokumentów oraz o datę zarejestrowania mojego wniosku.

Z poważaniem,
Patryk Wysocki

Link to this

From: EO ARES NOREPLY

[1]Ares(2019)506668 - Acknowledgement of receipt to your request for
public access to documents Ares(2019)506177

Sent by ve_ombu.euroombudsman (OMBU) <[European Ombudsman request email]>. All
responses have to be sent to this email address.
Envoyé par ve_ombu.euroombudsman (OMBU) <[European Ombudsman request email]>. Toutes
les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique.

Dear Ms Wysocki,

Thank you for your request for public access to documents that you
submitted to the European Ombudsman’s Office on 24.01.2019.
Your request has been registered today under reference Ares(2019)506177.

It will be dealt with in accordance with Regulation 1049/2001 regarding
public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents and
the Decision of the European Ombudsman on internal procedures for dealing
with applications for public access to documents and requests for
information.

We will deal with your request as soon as possible and reply to you no
later than 19.02.2019 (15 working days from the date of registration of
your request).

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Office by
telephone: + 33 (0)3 88 17 23 13 or e-mail: [European Ombudsman request email].

Yours sincerely,

European Ombudsman

FOI team

1 avenue du Président Robert Schuman
CS 30403
F - 67001 Strasbourg Cedex
eo@ombudsma,europa.eu
www.ombudsman.europa.eu

References

Visible links
1. https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/doc...

Link to this

From: EO ARES NOREPLY


Attachment image001.gif
5K Download

Attachment INFORMATION REQUEST REPLY 201601467 20161110 093703 Redacted.pdf
797K Download View as HTML

Attachment Reply ATD Ares 2019 506177 EN translation.pdf
245K Download View as HTML


Link: [1]File-List
Link: [2]Edit-Time-Data
Link: [3]themeData
Link: [4]colorSchemeMapping

[5]Ares(2019)790450 - Pański wniosek o dostęp do dokumentów -
Ares(2019)506177 - Reply to your request for public access to document
Ares(2019)506177

Sent by ve_ombu.euroombudsman (OMBU) <[European Ombudsman request email]>. All
responses have to be sent to this email address.
Envoyé par ve_ombu.euroombudsman (OMBU) <[European Ombudsman request email]>. Toutes
les réponses doivent être effectuées à cette adresse électronique.

Temat: Pański wniosek o dostęp do dokumentów - Ares(2019)506177

 

Szanowny Panie,

Dnia 24 stycznia 2019 roku, złożył Pan poprzez platformę [6]asktheeu.org
wniosek o dostęp do dokumentów, które zostały “wysłane z Komisji
Europejskiej do [Pana] i zawierają poniższe informacje:

- frazę „NIEPRAWIDŁOWOŚCI W PROCESIE WYBORCZYM”

- lub jedno słowo „WYBORY”.

Pański wniosek został zarejestrowany dnia 29 stycznia 2019 r. pod numerem
referencyjnym Ares(2019)506177.

Rozpatrzyliśmy Pański wniosek w oparciu o Rozporządzenie 1049/2001[7][1] w
sprawie publicznego dostępu do dokumentów Parlamentu Europejskiego, Rady i
Komisji 1049/2001 oraz Decyzję Europejskiego Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich
w sprawie wewnętrznych procedur rozpatrywania wniosków o publiczny dostęp
do dokumentów oraz wniosków o udzielenie informacji[8][2].

Zidentyfikowaliśmy następujący dokument, który wchodzi w zakres Pańskiego
wniosku o dostęp:

- INFORMATION_REQUEST_REPLY_201601467_20161110_093703

Postanowiliśmy przyznać Panu dostęp do dokumentu z zastrzeżeniem redakcji
danych osobowych. Dokonaliśmy zatem redakcji w powyższym dokumencie, w
celu ochrony danych osobowych zgodnie z art. 4 ust. 1 lit. b
Rozporządzenia 1049/2001 wraz z Rozporządzeniem 2018/1725[9][3]
Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady 2018/1725 z dnia 23 października 2018 r.

Zgodnie z art. 4 ust. 1 lit. b Rozporządzenia 1049/2001, instytucja odmówi
dostępu do dokumentów (bądź ich części) jeśli ich ujawnienie naruszyłoby
ochronę prywatności oraz integralności osoby fizycznej.

Ponadto art. 3 ust. 1 Rozporządzenia 2018/1725 wskazuje, że dane osobowe
“oznaczają informacje o zidentyfikowanej lub możliwej do zidentyfikowania
osobie fizycznej […]”.

Jeśli zechce Pan uzyskać dostęp do danych osobowych, które zostały
zredagowane, może Pan złożyć odpowiedni wniosek. Należy pamiętać, że
zgodnie z art. 9 ust. 1 lit. b Rozporządzenia 2018/1725 dane osobowe
przekazuje się jedynie do odbiorców mających siedzibę w Unii innym niż
instytucje i organy Unii wyłącznie jeśli “przekazanie danych jest
niezbędne w określonym celu w interesie publicznym, zaś administrator,
w przypadku gdy istnieje jakikolwiek powód, by uznać, że uzasadniony
interes osoby, której dane dotyczą, może zostać zagrożony, ustali po
wyraźnym dokonaniu oceny różnych przeciwstawnych interesów, że przekazanie
danych osobowych w tym określonym celu jest proporcjonalne”. W przypadku
takiego potencjalnego wniosku musiałby Pan wykazać konieczność przekazania
danych osobowych w określonym celu w interesie publicznym[10][4].

Ponadto dokonaliśmy dalszych redakcji, aby zmniejszyć ryzyko wykrycia
przez roboty internetowe adresu e-mail, co może być wykorzystane do celów
spamu.

Jeśli zechce Pan podważyć tę decyzję, może Pan złożyć wniosek o ponowne
rozpatrzenie zgodnie z art. 7 ust. 2 Rozporządzenia 1049/2001 (‘wniosek
potwierdzający’), odpowiadając na tę wiadomość w ciągu 15 dni roboczych od
czasu otrzymania niniejszej decyzji. Wnioski o ponowne rozpatrzenie są
rozpatrywane przez naszą Sekretarz-Generalną.

Jeśli ma Pan dalsze pytania bądź wymaga Pan dodatkowych wyjaśnień, proszę
o kontakt telefoniczny bądź za pośrednictwem poczty elektronicznej.

W załączeniu znajdzie Pan również angielskie tłumaczenie naszej odpowiedzi
na Pański wniosek o dostęp do dokumentów.

 

Z wyrazami szacunku,

 

 

Nastasja Fuxa

Transparency Officer

 

 

[11]Logo European Ombudsman
Nastasja Fuxa
Transparency Officer
[12]T. +33 3 88 17 23 13
[13][European Ombudsman request email]
1 avenue du Président Robert Schuman
CS 30403
F - 67001 Strasbourg Cedex
T. + 33 (0)3 88 17 23 13
F. + 33 (0)3 88 17 90 62
[14]www.ombudsman.europa.eu

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Rozporządzenie 1049/2001 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 30
maja 2001 r. w sprawie publicznego dostępu do dokumentów Parlamentu
Europejskiego, Rady i Komisji, jest dostępne pod następującym adresem:

[15]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...

2 Decyzja jest dostępna pod następującym adresem:
[16]https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/lette...

3 Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2018/1725 z dnia 23
października 2018 r. w sprawie ochrony osób fizycznych w związku z
przetwarzaniem danych osobowych przez instytucje, organy i jednostki
organizacyjne Unii i swobodnego przepływu takich danych oraz uchylenia
rozporządzenia (WE) nr 45/2001 i decyzji nr 1247/2002/WE, jest dostępne
pod następującym adresem:

[17]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...

4 Wyrok Trybunału z dnia 29 czerwca 2010 r. w sprawie C-28/08 P, Komisja
Europejska przeciwko The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd., ECLI:EU:C:2010:378, pkt
63. 

 

 

 

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

[18][1] Rozporządzenie 1049/2001 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 30
maja 2001 r. w sprawie publicznego dostępu do dokumentów Parlamentu
Europejskiego, Rady i Komisji, jest dostępne pod następującym adresem:
[19]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...

[20][2] Decyzja jest dostępna pod następującym adresem:
[21]https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/lette...

[22][3] Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2018/1725 z
dnia 23 października 2018 r. w sprawie ochrony osób fizycznych w związku z
przetwarzaniem danych osobowych przez instytucje, organy i jednostki
organizacyjne Unii i swobodnego przepływu takich danych oraz uchylenia
rozporządzenia (WE) nr 45/2001 i decyzji nr 1247/2002/WE, jest dostępne
pod następującym adresem:

[23]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...

[24][4] Wyrok Trybunału z dnia 29 czerwca 2010 r. w sprawie C-28/08 P,
Komisja Europejska przeciwko The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd.,
ECLI:EU:C:2010:378, pkt 63. 

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01D4C1FE.9E7AAA00
2. file:///tmp/cid:editdata.mso
3. file:///tmp/~~themedata~~
4. file:///tmp/~~colorschememapping~~
5. https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/Ares/ext/doc...
6. https://www.asktheeu.org/
7. file:///tmp/foiextract20190211-24307-fwy6rq#_ftn1
8. file:///tmp/foiextract20190211-24307-fwy6rq#_ftn2
9. file:///tmp/foiextract20190211-24307-fwy6rq#_ftn3
10. file:///tmp/foiextract20190211-24307-fwy6rq#_ftn4
12. Click to call
file:///tmp/tel:+33388172313
13. mailto:[European Ombudsman request email]
14. European Ombudsman Home Page
http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/
15. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
16. https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/lette...
17. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
18. file:///tmp/foiextract20190211-24307-fwy6rq#_ftnref1
19. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
20. file:///tmp/foiextract20190211-24307-fwy6rq#_ftnref2
21. https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/lette...
22. file:///tmp/foiextract20190211-24307-fwy6rq#_ftnref3
23. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/...
24. file:///tmp/foiextract20190211-24307-fwy6rq#_ftnref4

Link to this

From: Patryk Wysocki

Delivered

Dear Mrs. Ombudsman and Mrs. Nastasja Fuxa

I thank you very much for your answer but unfortunately your document is wrong.
It looks like you do not you understand my request but you do not worry.
Let me explain it to you and everyone.

1. I have requested information that is the words of Mrs. Ombudsman and which come from her letter of 11.12.2018. to the complaint 1196/2018/JAP.
For this reason, I have quoted the whole paragraph of the Ombudsman in the reason:
„For few years you were in touch with the European Commission in connection with the alleged
IRREGULARIES IN THE ELECTION PROCESS IN POLAND
THAT TOOK PLACE IN 2012 AND 2014
The Commission has consistently claimed that the issues raised in your correspondence are not related to the implementation of EU law and on this basis have decided not to take any further action.”
I request for access to this document in English version.

You found the document: INFORMATION_REQUEST_REPLY_201601467_20161110_093703.pdf
In this document, the European Commission explains what it does in:

a) "PROCEDURES OF THE RULE OF LAW AGAINST POLAND",
- not "IRREGULARITIES IN THE ELECTION PROCESS IN POLAND"

b) This procedure covers the period from December 2015 to the present day,
- not the period between 2012-2014.

c) The word "elections" appears, but in the sense of: "ELECTION of three judges (Constitutional Tribunal) made in the previous term" means "before the parliamentary ELECTION to the Parliament, which took place on 25.10.2015.”
- not in the sense of "IRREGULARITIES IN THE ELECTION PROCESS IN POLAND,
THAT TOOK PLACE PLACE IN 2012 AND 2014. "

d) In this document does not appear anywhere the phrase: "IRREGULARITIES IN THE ELECTION PROCESS, THAT TOOK PLACE IN 2012 AND 2014".

e) This document is not related to complaint 1196/2018/JAP, it mean it is not related to Mrs. Ombudsman’s letter.
- This document is related to another complaint 1467/2016/JAP - You can see this in the “subject”, the document that you attached. ;)

f) This is not a "document that was sent from the European Commission to me", which I requested.
- I have NEVER received this document from the European Commission.
- The EC sent it to the European Ombudsman on November 9, 2016 - you can see this in the "sent" label, the document you attached. ;)
I Request to reveal the receiver of this document (INFORMATION_REQUEST_REPLY_201601467_20161110_093703.pdf).
What is the information in the "to:" label?
- Then the European Ombudsman sent this document to me.

g) Your document is public and has no relation to my request for access to documents:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fil...
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEM...
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEM...

So why do you give me a document totally unrelated to my request?
Can you not find documents where the European Commission writes about: "IRREGULARITIES IN THE ELECTIONS PROCESS IN POLAND,
THAT TOOK PLACE IN 2012 AND 2014 "
Do these documents from the European Commission not exist?
But Mrs. Ombudsman wrote very clearly and She even signed it!

Does Mrs. Ombudsman lie and falsify information from the European Commission?

2 PROVED IRREGULARITIES IN THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN OFFICE

A. MRS. OMBUDSMAN USES FALSE INFORMATION.
Mrs. Nastasja Fuxa has proved that there are no documents and the European Commission has never connected my information with such nonsense as: "IRREGULARITIES IN THE ELECTION PROCESS, THAT TOOK PLACE IN 2012 AND 2014 "

In the documents:
- Ares(2017)1040001 - 27/02/2017
- Ares(2017)6165692 - 15/12/2017
- Ares(2018)1933340 – 11/04/2018
The European Commission did not even use the word “election” once.
I request for access to these documents in English version.

So, the information what Mrs. Ombudsman uses are false!!

The European Ombudsman has no right to change and falsify the opinion of the European Commission! There can not be any justification for such an act!!

Also, the European Ombudsman can not use his position and authority to force anyone to believe that the European Commission had something different in mind than what the Commission wrote about.
It looks like a very serious abuse of power!!!

B. MRS. OMBUDSMAN DOES NOT KNOW TRUE INFORMATION.

It seems that the Ombudsman strongly believes in this false information.

Mrs. Ombudsman ALWAYS AND ONLY write about:
Some examples:
- “For few years you were in touch with the European Commission in connection with the alleged irregularities in the elections process in Poland that took place in 2012 and 2014.”
- "the Commission's reaction to your complaints about irregularities in the election process in Poland"
- "election crimes in Poland"
- "election irregularities in EU member states."

Mrs. Ombudsman does not react and She does not improve the European Commission. She very much believes that the European Commission is writing about the same as Mrs. Ombudsman!
"The Ombudsman considered that the Commission's reply was reasonable."

The Ombudsman is fully convinced that: "irregularities in the election process that took place in 2012 and 2014" and "the rule of law procedure against Poland between December 2015 to the present day" - are the same!!!
IT IS VERY DIFFICULT ABOUT TWO THAT DIFFERENT TOPICS!!
Everything is different! Time, crime, government, prime minister ... Just everything!

If Mrs. Ombudsman had read the letters from the European Commission, She would know perfectly well how big and false nonsense She says!!

Of course, Mrs. Ombudsman does not have time to read all the documents. The Director of the Departments in the Office of the European Ombudsman are responsible for this ...

The Ombudsman is not the first person who uses this false information. The first was the Director of the Department in the Office of the European Ombudsman.

C. THE CHANGE OF FACTS, INFORMATION, CONTENT OF UNION LAW AND ABUSED AUTHORITY BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THE OFFICE OF THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN.

How is it possible that two almost identical requests for access to documents are treat totally different?

1. This request to the European Ombudsman on 24.01.2018.
2. The request to the European Commission from 25.04.2018.

Both requests clearly indicated the documents and contained the same detailed reason.
Additional explanatory information include suspicion of illegal falsification of information and documents within the European Institutions.

As we all can see, the European Ombudsman accepted the requests without any problems and responded it (as could). However, about the request to the European Commission has no information until today (10 months later)! As if this request has evaporated! - This was the main reason for the complain against the European Commission.

Unfortunately, the opinion of the European Ombudsman was very surprising and completely incomprehensible:
"We also believe that the list of requests regarding access to documents is not an appropriate application for access to documents. (…), you may consider the possibility of submitting an appropriate request for access."
“You can send a separate request for access to all documents held by the Commission in relation to your complaint. You can contact the Commission by email, clearly indicating that you want to access your case files.”

I am afraid, it is impossible to make a clearer and easier request.

The request to the European Commission was:
- “I REQUEST to give me mentioned by Mrs. Ringou the answers of the EC to me and “my” letter to Mrs. Jourovej from February 26!
-I REQUEST to give me all the letters that I “supposedly” sent to the EC! ALL OF ALL PERIODS!!”
- “I REQUEST to give all the answers of the EC to me! ALL OF ALL PERIODS!!”

I can even say that the request to the European Commission was even much easier than to the European Ombudsman because it did not require seeking any information in the content of the documents.
I mean, the European Commission officials did not have to read the contents of the documents!!

And that is all!
Other additional information could not affect to realization of the request.
We all can admire very nice presentation, as Mrs. Nastasja Fuxa could easily ignore all additional and uncomfortable information in the reasons.

As you can see, the request for access to documents from 25.04.2018 was 100% in line with Regulation 1049/2001 and EU law. The European Commission had no right to ignore this request. Accepting an almost identical request without any problems by the European Ombudsman fully confirms this.

It can be said that there was only one difference between these request.
- The request to the European Ombudsman was sent to the public by asktheeu.org,
- The request to the European Commission was sent by e-mail, non-publicly.
But I'm sure that everyone will admit that it should not be any difference!

I have repeatedly complained and described all manipulations and violations of EU law by the Director of the Department in the Office of the European Ombudsman.
I even tried it by asktheeu.org.
(https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/no_i...
As you can see, there is no answer.
All my complaints were ALWAYS ignored by the European Ombudsman.

Unless anyone will consider to very good and detailed Mrs. Ombudsman’s explanations from her letter on 11.12.2018.
I Quote the whole sentence:
"Your accusations that my inquiry team committed a crime in connection with your complaint or manipulated documents are unfounded."
That's what the Ombudsman has to say! She does not see any problems as ALWAYS.
Excuse me, but it's not enough for me!!

Thank you Mrs. Nastasja Fuxa for cooperation and proof of irregularities at this very important point, without any problems. I was afraid it would be more difficult.
I hope for further successful cooperation.

D. INCORRECT RECOGNATION OF THE COMPLAINT 1196/2018/JAP.
(https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decis...

Mrs. Nastasja Fuxa proved that the European Commission was NEVER with me in "correspondence about irregularities in the electoral process in Poland."

So the main subject of the complaint is totally wrong. As points 2A and 2B show, it is impossible to make such a big mistake!
If the European Ombudsman made such a big mistake in the fundamental point it could and it had a negative influence on the other points of the complaint.
What prevents proper recognition of the entire complaint.

Of course, I complained about it. Of course, the European Ombudsman completely ignored this.

I want to show what looked the European Ombudsman's work in this very small part of the complaint (it means 1-2%, no more).
As Mrs. Ombudsman said (11.12.2018):
„My inquiry team opened an investigation of just one issue - an incorrect reference in the Commission's letter on 11 April 2018.”

The decision to close the complaint:
„(…) As the complainant never received these replies, he asked the Commission to send copies of them, claiming that the Commission could falsify the documents.
2. The Ombudsman's inquiry team has asked the Commission to clarify the statement.”

The inquiry team did not ask but gave precise instructions (06.09.2018): how the European Commission should respond to the complaint being closed:
„the Ombudsman’s inquiry team suspects that the contentious letter mistakenly makes reference to incorrect dates or to the complainant’s letters, which were sent to the Commission.
Should that be the case, we would be grateful if the Commission could clarify and apologies for this conclusion to the complainant.”
I request for access to this document in English version.

The European Commission's answer: (Ares(2018)5125836 – 05/10/2018)
“I would like to apologize for the above mistake. The dates and references above referred to letters received from you on these days and not to answer to your questions.”
I request for access to this document in English version.

So, the Department’s Director closed the case because she received the answer what she expected.
Earlier Mrs. Ringou was sure that my information was: "Evaluated by us - we presented its results in answers addressed to you" in 2017. Between April and November 2018, these documents mysteriously disappeared.
As you can see in point 2C, the Department's Director did everything to prevent me that I cold never get an access to my documents.

In my humble opinion, the European Commission should give me access to my documents right away and say "If you find any irregularities, please report them to us immediately." But something like that never happened...

Traditionally, Mrs. Ombudsman does not see any problems.
“My inquiry team identified mistakes that occurred during the recognition of your case by the Commission and obtained explanations and apologies for you. My team found a solution for the problem you raised in your complaint. The analysis of your case by my team was accurate and correct, which was confirmed by the Commission's reply.”

Probably this is the first example in the history of mankind, when the government mistaken the citizen's submits with their own answers, where were the "results of analysis", which disappeared...

This is how the European Ombudsman's Office works… “founded a solution”…
Mrs. Ombudsman is very glad and totally does not understand why it is ridiculous.

AND NOW THE BEST FACT

My complaints to the European Commission have ALWAYS started in the style:
“I reveal the practice practiced by the Polish government in 2012-2014, consisting in repeated violations of the rule of law, democracy, justice, third-division power, rights and EU values.

- Treaty on European Union – art. 2; art. 3 pkt 2; art. 6.
- European Convention on Human Rights – art.: 2; art. 3; art. 5; art. 6; art. 7; art. 9; art. 10; art. 13; art. 1 protokół 12 ECHR
- EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - art. 1, art. 2 pkt 1; art. 3 pkt 1; art. 4; art. 6; art. 10; art. 11; art. 20; art. 21; art. 41 pkt 1,2 i 3; art. 47, art. 48 pkt 1 i 2”

The European Ombudsman - understands this as some “irregularities in the electoral process in 2012 and 2014”.
The European Commission - understands this as “the rule of law procedure against Poland from December 2015”.

Neither the European Ombudsman nor the European Commission see "violations of EU law".
Both of these institutions ALWAYS do everything to IGNORE and CHANGE my words.

They NEVER mentioned "violations of EU law".
They NEVER asked me for more information and evidence.
They NEVER offered help.
Like it NEVER existed.

3. VERY CLEAR REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION
I will repeat all the requests for documents in one place to make it clear for everyone.

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001 and the Ombudsman’s Decision, I am requesting documents and information:
a) The other answers from the European Commission to my complain of “breach of EU law":
- Ares(2017)1040001 - 27/02/2017
- Ares(2017)6165692 - 15/12/2017
- Ares(2018)1933340 – 11/04/2018
b) Letter from Mrs. Ombudsman to me from 11.12.2018.
That everyone can verify my words about the use of false information by Mrs. Ombudsman.
c)The ask of the Ombudsman's inquiry team to the Commission to clarify the statement from 06.09.2018.
d)The answer of the European Commission Ares(2018)5125836 – 05/10/2018
That everyone can admire how the European Ombudsman instructs, what the Commission's response should be.
e) Reveal the receiver of the document (INFORMATION_REQUEST_REPLY_201601467_20161110_093703.pdf).
What is the information in the "to:" label?
f) Does Mrs. Ombudsman confirm the authenticity of her letter from 11.12.2018?
g) Mrs. Ombudsman, what exactly election do you mean? Some judges, politicians, some European?
In 2012 and at the beginning of 2014, there were no any election processes.
h) Clarifications from Mrs. Ombudsman, who gave her false information? From the Department Director?

I am asking for access to all these documents in the English version. That everyone can know them. After all, the Ombudsman has nothing to hide.

Please, make English our main language of contact. A lot of people interested in this matter do not know Polish. A translation into Polish please add to the attachment.

I hope for further without problems cooperation with the Office of the European Ombudsman.

Please confirm that you have received my request for access to documents and information and the register date of my request.

4. INFORMING A PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMPLAINT.

the person responsible for the reconsideration of the complaint

I am asking for the Office of the European Ombudsman to give proved in this correspondence great violations and irregularities in the complain 1196/2018/JAP.

Unfortunately, I personally can not do this because for over 2 months I do not know who reconsideres the complaint 1196/2018/JAP again.

More information about this problem here: https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/no_i...

5. VERY NEGATIVE OPINION ABOUT THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN

As everyone can see, the Office of the European Ombudsman did to many very shocking irregularities, violations, manipulations and change of facts and information, violation of EU law and humiliating and unworthy treatment of a citizen of the European Union.

Exactly by the arrogant actions of EU officials, the European Union is losing its support drastically.

I am Pro-European, I took a risk and made the effort to inform and alarm the European Union authorities about problems, violation of EU law and disloyalty of some EU officials.

But the EU Institutions have recognized me as their enemy and do everything against me.
I feel betrayed by them.

I feel like EU officials say: “2+2=22! And what will you do to us? You are nothing!!”

I feel like I'm in touch with some dishonest, criminal band, not with EU institutions.
And what is the worst, it really looks like that!
And not only I am the victim of their illegal activities, also Mrs. Ombudsman and officials of the European Commission.

At your service,
Patryk Wysocki

Link to this

From: Patryk Wysocki

Delivered

Dear European Ombudsman,

Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.
I am filing the following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request 'False informations from the European Ombudsman's office.'.

I am sorry that I am disturbing but I sent a request for access to documents and information on 26.02.2019. A full history of my request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/fals...
15 business days have passed on 20.03.2019.
Why I have not received any response?
Why I have not received even the confirmation of the request?
Something happened?
The European Ombudsman's office has been closed?

My application is very simple. All information about documents are provided in detail. You do not even have to use the Ctrl + F command as you did in the previous request.

Do not you think that it is very important to explain why the Ombudsman uses false information?
Do you want to hide something?
The situation is simple, if there were no irregularities within the Office of the European Ombudsman, I can not prove them, but if they are… I will prove it with great pleasure, as before.
Do you fear this? I know… but this is not a reason not to give me access to documents and information.

REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS.

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001 and the Ombudsman’s Decision, I am requesting documents and information:
a) The other answers from the European Commission to my complain of “breach of EU law":
- Ares(2017)1040001 - 27/02/2017
- Ares(2017)6165692 - 15/12/2017
- Ares(2018)1933340 – 11/04/2018
b) Letter from Mrs. Ombudsman to me from 11.12.2018.
That everyone can verify my words about the use of false information by Mrs. Ombudsman.
c)The ask of the Ombudsman's inquiry team to the Commission to clarify the statement from 06.09.2018.
d)The answer of the European Commission Ares(2018)5125836 – 05/10/2018
That everyone can admire how the European Ombudsman instructs, what the Commission's response should be.
e) Reveal the receiver of the document (INFORMATION_REQUEST_REPLY_201601467_20161110_093703.pdf).
What is the information in the "to:" label?
f) Does Mrs. Ombudsman confirm the authenticity of her letter from 11.12.2018?
g) Mrs. Ombudsman, what exactly election do you mean? Some judges, politicians, some European?
In 2012 and at the beginning of 2014, there were no any election processes.
h) Clarifications from Mrs. Ombudsman, who gave her false information? From the Department Director?

I am asking for access to all these documents in the English version. That everyone can know them. After all, the Ombudsman has nothing to hide.

Please, make English our main language of contact. A lot of people interested in this matter do not know Polish. A translation into Polish please add to the attachment.

I hope for further without problems cooperation with the Office of the European Ombudsman.

Please confirm that you have received my request for access to documents and information and give me the register date of my request.

At your service,
Patryk Wysocki

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
European Ombudsman only: