Paul van Buitenen
Paul van Buitenen ( born May 28, 1957 in Breda ) is a former European officials, who hails from the Netherlands. He was known as a whistleblower and was later European politicians.
Vocational training
In 1977, Paul van Buitenen had completed an apprenticeship in tool making at the Technical University in Eindhoven. His military service in the Netherlands graduated from Paul van Buitenen 1979-1980. Then he made in 1980 a specialist diploma in accounting. At the Netherlands Institute for Auditing ( NIVRA ), he finished 1983 with a professional education.
Private vocational
The professional work began in 1980-1985 as an auditing assistant. Then in 1985 he was head of the management of a production plant until 1986. In 1986, he was at a university, as a senior staff member of the Finance Division to 1990 employment.
Activities as an EU official
In 1990, Paul van Buitenen was an EU civil servant employment of the European Commission in Brussels, he was able to exert up to 2002. As of 2002, he could be working for one year as a consultant for financial management in the police temporarily.
In 2003, he was - again for a year - exercise as a civil servant in Brussels at the European Commission a responsible activity.
Personal merit
He publicly denounced the fraudulent conduct of some members of the then European Commission, which then had a total withdraw. Van Buitenen was suspended and then placed in a " safe " function. He wrote a book about the case entitled Strijd voor Europe ( German title: Incorruptible for Europe). He then founded the party Transparant Europe. In the elections to the European Parliament on 10 June 2004, this immediately won two seats.
Prehistory
Van Buitenen first worked at DG 22, the Directorate, which is responsible for the execution of programs (eg vocational training ). On January 1, he was transferred at his own request to DG 20, the financial control services to the other directorates. When inspecting officer he had collected together with colleagues some evidence ECHO mainly through the Leonardo da Vinci -BAT program and also. This evidence was partly based on anonymous testimony. The material pointed to a direct or indirect interest in involvement in the allocation of Da Vinci funds to private companies, the parts of the program should run on a contract basis. It had occurred provable irregularities in the allocation of funds.
He reported his findings to the UCLAF, the anti-corruption service of the European Commission, but found that this took far too little with his report. However, his own service, DG 20 an investigation began at his former service, DG 22 The evaluation report confirmed that Van Buitenen was right. In the further studies but the focus was exclusively on one of the shady Da Vinci projects, the service itself was not screened. Van Buitenen could run no longer control jobs and do no more interviews colleagues. He wrote a note on the progress of the investigations to the services, cabinets and committees concerned and threatened with the publication of the European Parliament. He sent this report to his superiors, including the Director of UCLAF.
On 17 July 1998, the investigation report of DG 20, wherein the findings of Van Buitenen appeared to be confirmed. Until September 1, still nothing Noticeable was done with it. Van Buitenen was again threatened in writing with the publication of the Parliament. On October 28, he repeated his threat, but this was prohibited by its Director-General. Also, he was not allowed to contact the independent Court of Auditors. An anonymous letter was sent a few days before to all Members of Parliament, on the authority of Van Buitenen without his privity.
On 9 December 1998, shortly before the European Parliament should decide on the continuation of the projects in which Van Buitenen had detected the fraud, he saw it as his duty to inform the Parliament before the vote on the case took place.
Against the orders of his superiors, he sent 75 copies of a thick and well-documented report to the chairman of the Green party with a request to forward it to the Budget Control Commission of the Parliament. The dossier was about the, according to Van Buitenen, incompetent manner with which the European Commission treated the fraud in various output files and irregularities within the Commission. In this dossier specifically the Commissioner Edith Cresson came away very bad.
Leave of Absence
This act had serious professional consequences. He was expelled from the computer system and got the highest penalty: leave of absence. The reasoning was that he would have hurt by his remarks to the reputation of the office and he would have violated trade secrets. His pay was cut in half. It has launched an investigation into public service law his actions.
At the beginning of his report had only some excitement in parliament result. The discharge of the Commission for Education was denied in 1996. The Commission promised improvement in the treatment of corruption. It suggests the beginning of December, the UCLAF be replaced by OLAF, should work more independently.
Only after 4 January 1999, when Van Buitenen his leave of absence and halving his salary made public, the press pounced on the subject. The Commissioners Edith Cresson and Marin arrived in the crossfire of criticism. From the Parliament came demands for the resignation of two commissioners. It was made a motion of censure, and some called for the dismissal of the two commissioners.
The Commission accused Van Buitenen, he would spread lies and was incompetent. The allegations of fraud would be investigated for a long time, partly criminal law. On 15 March 1999, a committee of experts brought to Parliament a damning report, which they Van Buitenen investigations fully confirmed and also the need of its report to Parliament. In the evening, after the publication of the repeat of the Committee, the Commission resigned closed.
A proposal to protect informants by law, but was rejected by Parliament. After the end of his leave of absence Van Buitenen was transferred from the financial control services to the building services. The administrative investigation but was not stopped and in his new work, he learned many limitations.
Follow
The disclosures of Paul van Buitenen have resulted in the creation of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF ) in June 1999, which is to investigate corruption and other irregularities within the EU authorities. Unlike previously UCLAF OLAF was fitted for his investigations with independence, to prevent influence acquisitions.
Even after the crisis Van Buitenen tried to uncover and tackle potential irregularities. He gathered with the help of colleagues further material for a second dossier with new cases, which he presented in 2001 the new European Commission. He was given the occurrence of some parliamentarians for this task two months free.
2000 the European Parliament adopted a scheme for whistleblowers. It specifies that whistleblowers may disclose their findings to the Chairman of the European institutions. In June 2006, the Committee on Budgetary Control of the European Parliament discussed an expert report in which a record of the new whistleblower rules were drawn.
In the Dutch television Van Buitenen described on 13 June 2004 that he had become as a result of crisis a leper and that his computer had been searched. Also, for his family was enormous emotional burden. He would never become a whistleblower, if he had known the consequences before.
Europe Transparant
On 8 April 2004 Paul van Buitenen the formation of a new political party called Europe announced Transparant. He wanted to fight the ills in the European institutions better. In the Dutch elections to the European Parliament, he immediately won two seats after an election campaign that had cost no more than four thousand euros. He was immediately invited by other parties in their group to take place, which Van Buitenen but refused. Together with his party colleague Els de Groen, who wrote about corruption scandals in Eastern Europe, he seeks contact with like- minded people from other groups.
In 2005, Hans Peter Martin, Paul van Buitenen and Ashley Mote decided under the name Platform for Transparency (PFT ) to cooperate.
Christianity
Paul van Buitenen's family was Roman Catholic, in later years, he converted to the Protestant denomination and joined first an Anglican Church in Brussels. Thereafter he joined a charismatic church in Breda.