#209* – Marta ANDREASEN DISCREDITTED IN EUkip!
Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!
The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership & NEC
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
EUkip’s EFFORTS TO CLEAN-UP THEIR ACCOUNTS
SEEM TO GATHER A NEW CONTRAST!
The OECD and the European Commission both claim Marta Andreasen misrepresented her CV when she applied for jobs at both organizations.
Both organizations were at fault in not rigorously checking her CV and her references.When Andreasen was suspended from her job by the European Commission, she appealed to the Public Service Court claiming, among other things, one million euros in compensation.
Here are enclosed part of the judgment of the Public Service Court in 2007.221 In this case, it is first necessary to note that in its report to the Disciplinary Board, before 6 April 2004, the appointing authority retained the following allegations upon the applicant:
– Matters defamatory and insulting towards MM, Mme Schreyer and MG, thus compromising their honour in violation of articles 11 and 12 of the former statute;
– Concealment, during her recruitment by the Commission, of the suspension of her functions within the OECD, in violation of Article 12 of the former statute;
– Repeated non-respect of instructions from her superiors in violation of Article 21 of the former statute;
– Breach of her duty of discretion in addressing directly, without the authorization of her superiors, the President and members of the Court of Auditors, members of Parliament and the general public, in violation of Article 17 of the former statute;
– Absence without permission on 1 August 2002 in violation of Article 60 of the former statute; – Public statements without permission and repeatedly, in spite of clear and repeated violation of articles 11, 12 and 21 of the former statute;
– Participation in public events organized by others as an advocate without prior permission from the appointing authority, in violation of articles 12, 17 and 21 of the former statute.
In its opinion of 10 September 2004, the Disciplinary Board considered that the merits of those complaints had been demonstrated by the appointing authority.
After hearing the applicant and carrying out the assessment of the case, the appointing authority concluded in the decision that she “[had] repeatedly and knowingly acted in violation of the obligations arising from Articles 11, 12, 17 and 21 of the [former] statute ” ( ” had repeatedly and knowingly acted in disregard of the obligations set out in the Articles 11, 12, 17 and 21 of the Staff Regulations “).
It must next be seen, given the records of the applicant, that she does not dispute the materiality of the facts in regard to the allegation of concealment of her suspension from the OECD when she was recruited to the Commission. As for other complaints, she actually raises the error committed by the appointing authority in the evaluation of facts which he is charged.
Consequently, it is necessary, on the one hand, to check if the appointing authority could indeed consider the concealment of the suspension of applicant from the OECD as established at the time when it made the contested decision and, on the other hand, to examine whether the appointing authority did not make a glaring error in the appreciation of the other objections.
– On the concealment of information in recruitment
It is undisputed that the appointing authority does not have direct proof that the applicant, during her recruitment, concealed the suspension from which she was then subject within the OECD. The appointing authority has, however, built on the reasoning conducted by the Disciplinary Board, from a body of evidence, to infer the existence of this concealment.
It follows, indeed, the decision that, in essence, the appointing authority concluded that she had hidden, during her recruitment, her suspension from duty within the OECD, owing to the fact that, firstly, the curriculum vitae which she had submitted to the Commission did not indicate the suspension which she was serving within this organization.
The wording even suggests that she worked there when she applied to the Commission.
The same is true of the application which does not mention the suspension, despite the declaration signed by the applicant that she had provided all information sincerely and completely.
Secondly, the applicant did not declare the suspension at any moment during recruitment interviews with Mme Schreyer, MM and the external consultant involved in the recruitment procedure.
In this regard, the applicant’s argument that she informed MM orally of the suspension is contradicted by the fact he was reluctant to recruit the applicant and would have certainly indicated the suspension to the appointing authority if he had been informed.
Admittedly, the appointing authority was informed of the difficulties encountered in her work within the OECD, but none of the officials of this institution contacted by MM would have revealed the suspension.
In its defence, the Commission also argues that the applicant’s reliance on the fact that some newspapers had reported the suspension of her functions within the OECD, tends to confirm that she remains unable to prove she declared that suspension to the Commission.
It also stresses that the applicant does not attempt in her pleadings to challenge the presentation of facts by the Disciplinary Board, in its opinion of 10 September 2004.
In addition, the Commission, citing the transcript of the interview that she gave to the BBC on 3 October 2002, notes that she expressly stated that she had not informed the Commission of the suspension to which she was subject within the OECD.
To determine whether this is sufficient to establish that the applicant has concealed certain information to the Commission in her recruitment, it should be noted, firstly, that the Tribunal is unable to check the contents of the curriculum vitae and the application form filled in by the applicant, not having these documents.
It should however be noted that the applicant can in no way refute the Commission’s assertions about these documents.
In addition, it is important to note that, neither in her complaint, nor in her reply, does the applicant contest the version of facts as reported by the Disciplinary Board.
In particular, she does not respond to the Commission’s argument that MM, reluctant to recruit her, would not have hesitated to inform the appointing authority of the suspension to which the applicant was subject within the OECD, if he had been informed. Similarly, the applicant does not comment on the content of her interview with the BBC on 3 October 2002.
It should be noted finally that, in her pleadings, she stresses the shortcomings of the recruitment procedure in that the Commission did not take the initiative to learn, but does not demonstrate that she actually informed the Commission of her suspension.
From all these considerations, it follows that the appointing authority was entitled to consider that the applicant had hidden, during her recruitment by the Commission, the suspension to which she was subject within the OECD.
This conclusion cannot be invalidated by the applicant’s argument that the initial contacts between her and the Commission were directed through her private address in Barcelona and show that the institution knew she was no longer in OECD, which is based in Paris. Indeed, one can not deduce, from this circumstance, the fact that she informed the Commission of her suspension from the OECD.
– On the ignorance of the duties of loyalty and discretion because of certain statements made by the applicant
One wonders if UKIP ever received a written application for the job of Treasurer from Andreasen?
Was this rigorously checked?
Were references taken up?
Were her academic qualifications checked with the issuing authority?
Did the NEC check the reasons why she left the OECD and the EC?
If none of these things were done, the NEC plainly failed in its duties.
One wonders in some astonishment at the utter irresponsibility, complete incompetence and staggering unprofessionalism of EUkip – they aspire to Governance, seek and solicit our votes and betray us on almost every count – recruiting staff based not upon ability or conventional grounds but because their smile and attributes attract senior members whilst serving in shops, or having fake titles or suitable body shapes.
It is not just the sexual nature of some employment, or so it would seem, but what expertise do such as Reeve, Arnott, Bannerman, Nuttall and their ilk bring to the job?
Similarly how can someone with the incredible incompetence of first Denny and his serial dishonesty and now Ma Zucherman’s undeniable lack of competence or professionalism as Party Secretary be considerred credible!
Now EUkip has no competent leader, a totally discreditted and unarguably dishonest and corrupt Treasurer, a hopeless inadequate unelected Chairman, liars, rogues and rascalls propping up the undeniable incompetence and endemic dishonesty of the NEC & Leadertship.
EUkip leadership lacks a single solitary trustworthy officer – NOT ONE INDIVIDUAL remaining in EUkip’s leadership could be trusted with money, which they fail to account and trust which they serially betray.
As a long term supporter of UKIP its present leadership team disgusts me – I am clearly not alone as will be shown by the alternative list of UKIP members who will stand and campaign against the corruption that is EUkip in June.
I can NOT believe that people like Lord Pearson, Lord Willoughby de Broke, Dr. Bob Spink MP, Prof. Tim Condon, The Earl of Dartford and their ilk are merely stunningly stupid – one is forced to ask what they hope to gain by prostituting their reputations to involvement with the liars, cheats, low lifes and self seekers that are EUkip’s leadership and NEC.
01291 – 62 65 62
I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning for withdrawal of these United Kingdoms from the EU and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country:
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper:
LEAVE THE EU