RP to Emily O'Reilly: EO and IDOC cooperating? Interview Verheugen

Roelie Post

Attachments21:20 (0 minutes ago)

to Euro-Ombudsman, GOMES

Dear Mrs. O'Reilly,

On 27 October 2017 I informed you that I disagree with the preliminary conclusion of the Ombudsman's inspection meetings.

Since I now have become aware of the below, and got access to additional information, I address myself to you again.

I have received information from which it looks like your office and the Commission's Disciplinary Investigation's Office (IDOC) are cooperating:

· your report of the Inspection Meeting involving the European Commission is part of the IDOC investigation

· correspondence from me with your office was shared with IDOC (CMS-17/28 Additional Documents)

The Inspection Meeting's report's conclusion is only about the secondment. Not about the time before or after. The failed reintegration, the pressure to be put on invalidity in 2007 and 2014.

The questions of the Inspection Team were framed in such a way, limited to replies to my numerous letters, that the inquiry got limited to documents related to replies to my correspondence. No broader approach was taken. In fact, the issues raised by MEP Gomes remained wholly unaddressed.

Many important documents your office was not provided with.

For example the exchange of correspondence between DG Danielsson and DG Souka, which were recently brought to my notice. From that you can clearly see how they tried to force me into invalidity, and that there was no intention to have me working (ARES (20163503057 15/06/2016).

DG Danielsson wrote to DG Souka requesting to implement relevant procedures (salary cut, and retroactive recuperation, killing me financially) when invalidity had failed before I was informed by the Medical Service to continue my professional activity. So clearly they did not want me to do so:

· Note Danielsson to Souka: prolonged absence R. Post (ARES (2017)2734363 31/05/2017)

· Letter Medical Service to RP: No invalidity art 78 - continue professional activity (ARES (2017)2863517 08/06/2017)

The cutting (retroactively) of my salary in August 2015 was done without prior administrative inquiry (abuse of power?) to get me into (retroactive) sick leave. My salary was re-instated (retro-actively) within two days. After a letter was sent by German citizens to President Juncker and Prime Minister Merkel. And not in October, like the Commission claims.

As said, the conclusion of the Inspection Team did not take the full context of why I was seconded to an NGO into account.

This exceptional measure was initiated by SG Catherine Day.

I had worked under the previous COM directly under the instruction of the Commissioner. With back-up of Catherine Day.

When I was manu military removed from my job, and published a book, instead of addressing the underlying policy issue, the choice was made to make me work on the issue of child trafficking and adoption from outside the Commission's walls, while remaining a civil servant, in active service.

The reasoning of the SG/COM was to wait for the next COM to see what would be the lie of the land to make longer term plans (attached).

This did not give me any protection at all against threats and intimidation but rather put me at bigger risks. The reason for the secondment was not so much the threats, but the fact that I was no longer allowed to work on children's rights, or anti-trafficking.

Furthermore, the situation demanded that I fund from my own Commission salary the work of the NGO which had been set up. Over the years this did cost me a huge amount of money.

Unfortunately the powers at work were such that Mrs. Day did not put the issue on the COM's table.

The briefings I provided to her were, however, acted upon.

Obviously Under Barroso I and II the children file had gotten totally corrupted. (See Ingi Iusmen The EU and International Adoption from Romania )

In 2013 Catherine told me "just come back".

But that reintegration went wrong, as explained in my letters to Catherine Day, which are on file. By no longer backing me up, I became again fair game inside the Commission.

I only accepted the weird secondment because I knew I was supported by VP Verheugen and Day. I had no choice and I could not anticipate that the COM would make a full U-turn on Children´s rights, including financing the “adoption lobby” in clear cut violation of the treaty.

Looking back: It was irresponsible to send me into this war with organised crime, and then drop me like a hot potato when the corruption inside the Commission became blatant.

Secretary General Italianer had the message passed to me end of last year that I should resign and visit the Commission's psychological services (ARES(2017)5522042). I had begged him for help in getting out of this situation, because my daughter could no longer take the unresolved situation. A mother in hiding, a life and house abandoned in Brussels. An insecure financial situation since years... even though I did not tell her even half the story.

If something happens to me or my daughter, it is because of this file. Not because we did not look for psychological help. But because the issues are not addressed. Because of inhuman pressure.

Please find attached a letter to the Belgium judiciary sent by a Commission colleague equally in distress. It is provided to you in confidence, with her agreement.

I repeat my request to be heard. I would preferably like to meet you in person in The Hague, at the Dutch Parliament.

I do not feel safe anywhere near Brussels.

This is dragging on since over 15 years. I wanted off the job in 2002. Catherine Day convinced me to stay on. To not let the dark side win. But they did, it seems.

This situation has negatively affected my life, the lives of the staff of ACT, my daughter’s life.

The material and immaterial damage done to me and others involved in this is significant.

Why all this?

Because I stood up against highly political interests and guarded the European values as laid down in the Treaty, and that at the direct instruction of the Commissioner and order of the Secretary General?

Is this fair?

I expect this to be properly investigated. Apologies made, damages paid, policies reversed, .

Policies reversed, because last but not least the European citizens, families ripped apart, are now faced with the consequences and damages arising out of a wrongful policy based on a biased interpretation, based on the Hague Adoption Convention, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. A market in children is being created, of which we have only seen the beginning.

Apologies and damages so that life for us can go on.

Below an extract from a recent interview with former VP Verheugen, clarifying the exceptional politicising of the Children File. In my book I exposed mainly the external pressure of the "adoption lobby". Out of solidarity to the European project I kept fairly mum about the internal problems.

Yours sincerely,

Roelie Post

Part of the interview with former VP Gunter Verheugen - 2017 (translated from German)

She was a staff member in the DG. No management function. If I remember well she worked at the Romania Team, and in Romania there was the problem of - how shall I say? The economical motivated adoptions, I can also say: child trafficking. I became aware of her because of reports that came on my desk about the size and the sort of the problem. Those reports were from her.

From Roelie Post?

Yes, indeed.

I then wanted to get to know her. I wanted to know more precisely. I then asked for a meeting, and if the Commissioner asks a staff member for a meeting, she cannot say no (laughs).

I invited her to tell me more about it. And that has strongly motivated me in this case of child trafficking in Romania, to take a very clear and strong position. I already had that, I did not need to be convinced. But it motivated me in particular.

And in time it became clear that my position in this question of child trafficking in Romania encountered, how shall I express myself, huge political barriers.

In many countries and some NGO’s (laughs), people with real power. Massive reactions came from the US, Israel, Italy and France. These are the countries I remember. And that hangs together with policies of those countries on adoptions. There are countries that have policies directed towards serving couples who desire children. There are also countries which do what the UNCRC says, not to find a child for a family, but a family for a child. A big difference.

There was also considerable resistance in the Commission, in the own DG, because leading civil servants had on this issue a complete different opinion.

What do you mean with that?

They held my strong opinion towards Romania as wrong. After all I had told the Romanian Prime Minister that I could not conclude the accession of Romani if this issue was not solved. Pistol on the chest…

I put Roelie on the job. There was a lot of opposition and I had at a certain point the feeling that I did not get well informed a 100 %. I took a very unusual decision. I had a staff member directly inform me. Roelie had the possibility to directly give information to me, without the interference of the Director General.

I also made direct changes, I practically put her directly under me. Not formally, but practically.

How did you experience Roelie?

As a very competent, very engaged, very trustworthy staff member. Engaged, competent, trustworthy.

When you got to know Roelie, was she a psychiatric case?

Nooo....?? Everything was absolutely normal.

Is it the culture in Europe, that you did not get the information you wanted?

Different interests. Political interests. Nothing to do with the culture. Very very strong political interests.

3 Attachments