need of anti corruption body within EU

En attente d'une révision interne par Médiateur européen a propos de leur gestion de la demande.

Vesselina Iv. Dimova

Dear Mrs Tackett,

I am Bulgarian, I am well aware of the corruption in my country and am glad that EU is constantly criticising us on this matter and encourage is to better manage it.

Reciprocally, I think it is time to consider having a body that controls the corruption within the EU administration. Don’t you think it is fair? Based on what we should presume that Brussels is not corrupted? Brussels administration consists of human as well, hence can be corrupted as well. Maybe now is the proper time to become more transparent on this as I am not sure we will end only with Brexit.

Regards
Vesselina, PhD.

Euro-Ombudsman, Médiateur européen

Dear Ms Vesselina,

Thank you for contacting the European Ombudsman. However, we don't have a colleague here by the name referred to in your message, and I therefore asked asktheeu.org to look into the processing of your correspondence in their system. It was confirmed to me that the sending of your message to our office appeared to have been due to a mistake. I understand that asktheeu.org will contact you about this in due course, if they have not done so already.

Kind regards,

Peter Bonnor

European Ombudsman
Peter Bonnor
Head of Process Management & Inquiries Unit 5
Transparency Officer

[email address]

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

www.ombudsman.europa.eu

Afficher les sections citées

Vesselina Iv. Dimova

Dear Euro-Ombuds ,

Thank you for your reply and I do apologise for mistaking the name of the European Ombudsman.

I haven’t received an answer form anyone per your email, but have received a satisfaction survey which makes me think that I shall not expect any further reply.

The message was aimed at the European Ombudsman as there is no any anti-corruption body in EC to write to, hence the next appropriate institution is the Ombudsman who is supposed to protect the interest of the citizens. I still strongly suggest to have a mechanism for detailed; in depth and with; back in time and in the future, investigation of the initial and end point of each Euro no matter whether it is coming in the form of direct or indirect funding from different plans and fund of the EU. The reason to request this is not a hypothetical logical conclusion as you might conclude from my previous message. It was induced by a particular event, which topped the numerous odd events that make people (sure not only Bulgarians) to question the integrity of Brussels and subsequently loss of faith in EU. For obvious reasons, I can not go into details here but am sure you will get my point.

Kind regards
Vesselina, Ph.D.

Euro-Ombudsman, Médiateur européen

Dear Ms Vesselina,

In reading your last email, I got the impression that you have not been informed about European Anti-Fraud Authority, 'OLAF'. Please find here a link to their site for reporting fraud:
https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/olaf-and...

Kind regards,

Peter Bonnor

European Ombudsman

Head of Process Management & Inquiries Unit 5
Transparency Officer

T. +33 (0)3 88 17 25 41

[email address]

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

www.ombudsman.europa.eu

Afficher les sections citées

Vesselina Iv. Dimova

Dear Mr Bonnor,
Thank you for informing me about the existence of OLAF. Indeed I was not aware of this authority. However this will not do the job as it investigates as it is written:

“What is OLAF's role ?:OLAF:
carries out investigations (e.g. on-the-spot inspections and witness interviews) into EU-funded projects in the country concerned to check that expenditure has been used correctly
cooperates with national authorities (information exchange, on-the-spot checks, cross-check on suppliers and related businesses, coordination of forensic audits etc.”

While I am very clearly speaking for corruption in Brussels.

There at three points:
1.Investigation of corruption in EC and European structures is a subject to the European Ombudsman. As an example I give the headline “Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 178/2014/AN against the European Investment Bank”. This is not the one and only complain against the EIB addressed to the Ombudsman. They are almost annual.
2.Corruption is very difficult to be proven, but it does not mean that is does not exist. Examples can be found in any countries, hence Brussels as well.The European Ombudsman's conclusion regarding the above (in this case the Ombudsman calls it maladministration) case confirms this:
“The EIB's decision to maintain its non-objection to the exclusion of the complainant's tender was based on a legally incorrect reading of the tender documents. This was an instance of maladministration.
The EIB’s activities affect the reputation of the European Union and should be consistent with the Union’s values and principles. The EIB’s maladministration in this case risks putting into question not only the EIB's own reputation but also the Union’s commitment to strengthening the rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This computational damage could have been avoided if the BIB had followed the advice of its own internal Complaints Mechanism.”
3.To prevent the need of corruption investigation, prior granting the finds there should be more transparent and controlled system/body, which is the main aim of my posts.

I will give up trying to catch your attention as this is not leading anywhere and I am a scientist, not a journalist, NGO, politician etc. and have no interest in spending any more time in this issue. However the problem stays, people are unhappy, Brussels will keep bumptiously granting peoples money, and some day this will explode.

Kind regards
Vesselina