Dear European Court of Justice,
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:
Legal information and comments about compliance with EU-law. Would also like to request a settlement between legal disputes between individual vs the Swedish Tax Agency, Swedish Police, Swedish Court of Justice.
With a background as an auditor I have learned that i have to be objective and give an equal treatment to each case and to do so according to the law to the best of my abilities.
As a former tax officer at the Swedish Tax Agency, one day my boss ("sektionschef") Sara Beckman gave me information that I had scrutinzed tax payer's tax form incorrectly. It was wrong of me to "read" their cases and the additional information they had provided in addition to the tax forms themselves, and to take that into consideration when I decided on their yearly tax.
In addition, she also said to me that i should attach a tax fine ("skattetillägg")- without taking the EU members legal right into consideration. She said that it didn't matter what tax they pay as they will never question my tax decision and that i should ignore my special investigation obligation ("särskilda utredningsplikt")
I of course questioned this order and told her - you can't be serious. I have a duty as a state agent and according to swedish tax law i am obliged to read all material and to take that into consideration. My next work day I got fired...
According to my Erik Friberger, legal adviser at Swedish Tax Agency - Tax fines are considered a crime/sentence for the individual. EU has given Swedish tax agency leeway to themselves apply tax fines ("skattetillägg") without going through the normal court of justice. But only if they freely and generously apply the rules that reduce the fine or remove it. But, according to the order i received from Sara Beckman I as a tax officer should ignore this instruction from EU and apply fines and disregard the legal rights of the individual.
When I got fired, I was forbidden by Sara Beckman to contact my union representative – this is protected by Swedish law yet she forbid me.
I contacted Sara Beckmans boss (kontorschef) Henrik Karlsson and explained the situation. After a couple of months back and forth he started an internal investigation on my behalf. Anders Gidrup was responsible for that, heres the thing. I was never heard, my union representative Christopher Harling (whom also had witnessed Sara Beckmans order to me) was never questioned, the tape records I had collected was never asked for etc. In addition to that, I have email conversations that incriminate Anders Gidrup and Henrik Karlsson.
I talked with Anders Gidrup for 2 minutes where he explained that he had initiated an investigation, 7 minutes later he told Henrik Karlsson and Anders Kylesten that the goal of the investigation was to “make a nice termination” and invited Sara Beckman (the target of the investigation) to be a part of the group and to meet up and discuss what should be written as the result of the investigation and given to me. – Am I the only one who question the objectivity of this investigation and how this reflects corruption within the Swedish tax agency?
I contacted the police and they initiated an investigation but they also were not interested in the tape recording, my witness story, the email conversation etc. So they stopped the investigation.
I have also contacted Annika Stenberg (region boss over Stockholm) as well as the general director Ingemar Hansson of the Swedish tax agency. They refer to the internal investigation and that this issue is resolved. They are ignoring the fact that the evidence against Sara Beckman was never used, that the tape recordings or email that incriminate. They claim that Sara Beckman has experience and that entitle her to go against Swedish tax law – but according to Swedish law how government bodies should be run, she does not have this power due to experience. Government bodies can only go against Swedish law in cases of crisis –i.e war or strong economic crisis. None of these reasons were mentioned. So what she has done is a crime (“fel och försummelse av myndighetsutövan”) or should be – i.e. I want this settled in the court of law.
Since then I have contacted the finance ministry and Anders Borg, as well as Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt but both of them refer to them not being able to act due to no “ministry involvement”. I find it strange that they consider it ok for an individual “sektionschef” at tax agency to go against the written tax law and that at least 400 tax payers should suffer (my share, Sara Beckman was responsible for about 20 tax officers, so 20x400 - per year!).
I have learned that Swedish tax agency have built into their system to ignore both Swedish and EU law in order to be “lean”. That the goal of state agent is to not follow the law but instead to please their superiors so that they can “nuke the stats” and claim that a case has been scrutinized when no such thing has occurred.
So, I’m writing to EU for them to settle this as national juridical system refuse to handle it.
Dear European Court of Justice,
I have been prompted to state that by law, the authority should normally respond promptly and by 27 November 2012. No such response have been recieved. The citizens of Europe are waiting for your response.
In reply to your e-mail, it seems appropriate to give some information about the duties and jurisdiction of the Court.
The Court of Justice ensures that in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the law is observed. The interpretation and application of provisions of the national law of the Member States do not form part of its duties. Neither can it hear and determine actions for breach of the European Convention on Human Rights by the authorities of the Signatory States; the Court of Justice is not to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights (see the latter's website at: www.echr.coe.int).
The Court of Justice is not a court of appeal from the national courts and cannot declare their judgments void or vary them.
Private persons may bring proceedings against an institution of the European Union only before the General Court and not before the Court of Justice. In such proceedings representation by a lawyer entitled to practise in a Member State is compulsory.
Disputes with Member States or their authorities, or between private persons fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts. This is so even where questions of European Union law are concerned. A court of a Member State may (or in certain circumstances, must), however, refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on questions of European Union law. The parties themselves have no such right.
The Registrar of the Court of Justice is thus unable to take any steps with regard to your e-mail.
For further information regarding the jurisdiction and the work of the Court, please visit the Court's website at: www.curia.europa.eu
The Registry of the European Court of Justice