Brussels as Bad as Burma: European Court Undermines Freedom of the Press
From the desk of Paul Belien on Thu, 2006-10-05 09:51
The European Court of First Instance has rejected an action for damages by journalist Hans-Martin Tillack against the European Commission’s Anti-Fraud Office (known by its French acronym OLAF). Early in 2004, Mr Tillack, the then Brussels correspondent of the German news magazine Stern, accused OLAF officials of bribery. OLAF complained with the Belgian authorities in Brussels. This led the Belgian authorities in March 2004 to order a police raid of Mr Tillack’s home and office, in order to identify his sources within OLAF. The Belgian police seized the journalist’s computers and documents. When he complained a police officer told him: “In Burma journalists get treated much worse.”
According to the European Court of First Instance, the report OLAF sent the Belgian authorities was not the cause of the harm suffered by Mr Tillack, since the Belgian authorities were free to decide whether or not to act on the report. Hence, the journalist cannot claim damages from OLAF. “This ruling should set alarm bells ringing. It means that the EU’s anti-fraud office is operating in a legal vacuum with little, if any, accountability for its actions,” commented Mr Tillack’s Counsel, Ian Forrester QC. Earlier, Belgian courts rejected a claim for damages from the Belgian authorities since at the time of the raid Belgium had no law protecting the sources of journalists.
Mr Tillack is now pinning his hopes on Europe’s last recourse for the protection of press freedom and the rights of individuals: the European Court for Human Rights in Strasburg recently opened the written procedure with respect to his complaint against the unjustified raids (Case No 20477/05, Tillack v Belgium).
Mr Tillack had published a number of articles criticising OLAF. At the time OLAF was investigating Eurostat, the EU’s statistics agency, which is very powerful because the figures that it publishes can determine who gets EU subsidies. The Eurostat case caused serious political problems for the Prodi Commission in 2003. OLAF was accused of having started the investigations only after the press reported about the case. The journalist who had first written about the Eurostat scandal was Mr Tillack. OLAF has repeatedly suggested, despite the lack of any evidence, that the journalist obtained the information by bribing an EU official. Two and a half years after the raid on Tillack’s home and office, however, no bribery charges have been brought against Mr Tillack.
I would like to think
Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Sun, 2006-10-08 13:36.
I would like to think Belgium is the worst in the EU but I doubt it. How can a democracy even function without free speech? Banning the Vlaams Belang should have sent a chill throughout the west but barely even made the news. Not that I would have voted for them personally but the immigration issue needs to be raised. Belgium is now a gateway for Holland immigration so this really, really needs to be addressed.
Rampant corruption, the state of European Commissions
Submitted by Freedom on Thu, 2006-10-05 15:11.
There is something both frightening and ironic when a Commission taxed with rooting out fraud will not allow any talk of fraud or corruption about itself. Only relentless pounding of the allegations in spite of of obstacles will reveal the stench of this and other Commissions' shenanigans.
______________________________________________
Freedom isn't just the right to do as one pleases, freedom carries responsibility and maintaining freedom is a never ending job.
The above story is not surprising: look at the Andreasen case.
Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Thu, 2006-10-05 12:44.
Dear Paul,
First, let me congratulate you wholeheartedly for your Hudson Institute nomination. Well done.
As regards this story, let me certify that the assertion according to which OLAF "is operating in a legal vacuum with little, if any, accountability for its actions" is absolutely accurate in its essence. Actually, there is no legal vacuum per se. On the contrary, there are so many, too many rules and regulations applying to every single thing in the Commission. However, OLAF operates in a completely arbitrary manner, i.e. according to where the wind is blowing, according to the "political" priority of the day. This means that each year there are so many potential cases that are not even investigated because they are not "interesting". Moreover, OLAF is a body that Commission officials, usually those who have something to do with internal audit, may join for a while. But it is just one stage in their career. This also means that today's OLAF officials can be tomorrow's cheaters and the other way around. And as you understand, making too much fuss about something or someone can be extremely dangerous for the future.
Just look at the case of Marta Andreasen, the Commission's former Chief Accountant. Three years ago, she blew the whistle. At the time, she had said that there were still so many loopholes in the Commission's accounting system that effective financial control was almost impossible, which could of course leave a lot of room for potential fraud and other irregularities. She was suspended and eventually fired by Mr Neil Kinnock, the red-haired Welsh Vice-President of the previous Commission and also the former leader of the British Labour Party. That's the way it works at the Commission.
To read more about the Andreasen story, click on http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/accountancyage/features/2040268/profile-marta-andreasen-personality