This page contains correspondence exchanged with OLAF (Office de Lute Anti-Fraude)
and its director, Mr. Franz-Hermann Bruener
[Please read the addenda as a justification to the facts on this page]
The same principles applied to the transcription of the e-mail massages explained on the page enclosing the correspondence with the Commissioner for AAAA (Administrative Affairs, Audit and Anti-Fraud) where taken here. Please check up on that page. To follow the chronological order, please start there.
Here is his answer, dated as of 18-7-2005.
Thank you for your e-mail. I was on mission, so I couldn't answer you
As you know e-mails are generally not secure, but my direct e-mail is only accessible by my personal assistant. The best way to send me some information's is via my e-mail address or by fax (003222963731). Before you send the fax you should call (003222969063), that I am there and get the fax directly out of the machine.
Franz H. Bruener
Here is the e-mail text accompanying the exposition to OLAF's director, dated like the other two as of 25-09-05.
I would like to present a complaint to OLAF, or better, provide some information regarding obvious maladministration and corruption in the use of the Community funds. I am enclosing the e-mail I have sent just now to OLAF with an attached PDF file containing the full text. I understand I should do it directly to OLAF’s e-mail address, what I have done. However, for the reasons stated in the last paragraph of the mentioned PDF file, I want to make sure that other important decision makers – including you and Mr. Siim Kallas, Vice-President for Administrative Affairs, Audit and Anti-Fraud – will receive it too.
The truth is that I think the facts to be much too heavy and very difficult to prove if symptoms, real signs, indicators, general public opinion and knowledge, etc., are automatically set apart and disregarded by an otherwise unfounded or misled decision. Furthermore, I am aware of the fact that the time is not the most appropriate because the present President of the Commission was once part of the government responsible for most of the events in question. I do not consider him corrupt, and I sincerely believe he has never been in any way involved with the corruption I mention in the submitted PDF file. He might have some knowledge about the situation just because he was here, as well as like any other Portuguese citizen living in the Country was, but after all he was a Minister of Foreign Affairs, supposedly in no way connected with the internal affairs where the corruption actually occurred. However, he may well feel mistakenly concerned, as well as also unjustifiably believe owing some sort of help to his political party fellows. This, under different circumstances, should be considered as loyalty. Thus, this may well not be the best time, but when should I try to ask OLAF for investigation if not now?
I assume that in order to be sure that these facts will be considered and not lightly put away for any reason whatsoever, it is my duty to try and do my best in that direction. After the above description on the related possible problems, including those in the mentioned last paragraph of my PDF file, I hope I have made clear enough that this is not a lack of trust on OLAF, but a simple anticipation.
Therefore, I am forwarding to you an integral copy of the message to OLAF with the attached PDF file, containing not all the known facts in order not to make it too long, but what I believe to be more significant. I hope this will deserve some of your attention and that a full and deep investigation will follow.
From what I could read in your personal summary description on OLAF’s site I understand you are one of the most eminent and distinguished law professionals in Europe. As a very common citizen, I have never had any law background, and so I am completely ignorant on that matter. Even if I am able to distinguish the right from the wrong and believe that Justice is more important than pity or mercy, I know almost nothing about Justice. Consequently, I may have not written exactly as I should, even if all my writing in the PDF file is right and true. I hope you will not find my exposition too much behind consideration.
Please excuse me if I have bothered you in any way in my effort on trying getting help to put things right. Thank you in advance for your attention regarding the subject.With kind regards
This is the e-mail text accompanying the exposition to OLAF's office, not repeated again and dated like the other two as of 25-09-05.
In the attached PDF file is written what I believe to be a dutiful citizen’s contribution to the EU. I am sure you must be acquainted with at least a few of the portrayed or related facts. I am writing to you just because I fail to understand what seems to be a permanent silence and lack of action from OLAF.
The facts look sometimes a bit dispersed, because some subjects have different relationships. For instance, education is simultaneously related with work (professions, industry, trade), civilization (social behaviour, deeds, conduct), how children and teenagers are brought up, teachers and educators fitness for their jobs, parents own mentality, state defined educational programs administered by schools, etc. For similar reasons, other subjects are also brought up under different contexts.
I do not need to follow your work on the subject in detail, but I would appreciate very much to be informed about what will be done of my exposition.
Two copies of the mentioned attached PDF file, solely intended as direct information, have been sent. One to Mr. Siib Kallas, Vice-President for Administrative Affairs, Audit and Anti-Fraud. The other to Mr. Franz-Hermann Brüner, OLAF’s Director.
Best regards and thank you
12 days later, the incredible answer from OLAF was received with reference OF/2005/0549 as follows, dated as of 7-10-05.
Dear Mr [name concealed]
Thank you for your communication to Commissioner KALLAS, to which OLAF has been asked to reply, and to OLAF directly.
OLAF has read with interest the information which you provided. However, OLAF can only consider investigating specific allegations, either of fraud or corruption affecting the EC budget, or of serious misconduct of a financial nature on the part of members of the European institutions. (OLAF is not in a position, for instance, to audit the use of European funds in a particular country, on the basis of an inference that if corruption exists in the country it will probably also involve European money.)
If you wish to make specific allegations of the kind mentioned above OLAF will be pleased to consider them.
After having read the exposition it comes out that OLAF's answer is not a correct answer to the point. Furthermore, there are discrepancies within the answer itself.
The text on the second sentence of the second paragraph [OLAF can only consider investigating specific allegations, either of fraud or corruption affecting the EC budget, or of serious misconduct of a financial nature on the part of members of the European institutions.] is in open contradiction with the meaning of what I wrote.
The exposition may not include too many names, but the facts are there, real, so widely known that cannot be denied. Everyone in the country knows it. Everyone knows of at least one case. Many cases happened openly with government offices. Most crimes were perpetrated by white collars in the governments, extended to too many high civil servants.
The above sentence in parentheses is a total deviation from what was written on the exposition. In fact, it had been frequently mentioned, repeated and emphasized several times it was not like that. It is certainly not an inference, they are real hard facts. Everyone can read it there, only OLAF missed the point and does not want to recognize it.
On the last paragraph one wonders what more specific could it be without doing what is their own job. Had they not read the names of important people who confirmed facts they knew on public broadcasts? One of them was the President of the Republic while most of the facts happened. What else can they want? Do they expect other people to do their work? Are they not the investigators? So, go and investigate on the field. It won't be that difficult with so many high placed people acquainted with so many hard cases. Very soon they would come to conclusions. Consequently, can we sincerely avoid to think that only a corrupt reason could have made them stop to go on any further? Isn't the case too clear and overknown to allow anyone to believe on anything else?
Their answer makes them a troupe of clowns. Can it be anything else, but corruption?
After receiving this response an e-mail was sent to the commissioner, as can be seen on the the correspondence with his office. I had written to him before writing to OLAF.
Go to the main page