Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Report From Brussels Pt.2, The German perspective
Below is a translation of Micheal Plümpe's report from the September 11th Meeting in Brussels including an explanation of the unique situation in Germany.
Special German Phenomena discussed in Brussels
A report by Michael Plümpe
I am from Berlin and therefore know the corridors of power first hand. Almost every week I pass the Government buildings by commuter train and regularly cannot prevent myself getting goose pimples.
This mixture of architectural pomp and bureaucratic utility is witness to the pride of a self-contained administration. This part of the city is structured like a machine and was built brand new on was what a bomb site to offer German citizens maximum efficiency in every aspect of administration, but it makes me scared.
The European Parliament in Brussels, however, is completely different. It is also a new edifice, but somehow fitted into the middle of a genuine old town at a genuine railway station. It seems to me more like a congress centre. The offices must be somewhere else, perhaps scattered throughout the whole city.
Inside people run around wearing black shoes and carrying backpacks, a strange combination. Where are the sleeve protectors? Where are the important faces in black suits? The safety procedures are relaxed and accreditation was quick and unbureaucratic - show your invitation, put on the name tag and welcome to the Plenary hall in which the committee meets. It is impressively professional. The round hall has outer walls with panes of tinted glass, behind each of which is a translator's cabin. How many languages Europe has! Despite this we can speak to each other without difficulty. These is not halls of power, these is halls of democracy.
So much for the atmosphere. A workshop is due to take place. The rappoteur of the parliament wanted to forge some ideas as to how to intervene in the problem of address book fraud. Where and how can and should the European Parliament become active to stop address book fraud.
Jules Woodell from stopecg.org spoke first. He had 3 minutes and made it even shorter. The law must be improved so that address book fraud can be punished throughout Europe.
Address Book Fraud - A German Invention?
After Jules Woodell it was my turn. I was prepared more for 10 minutes than for three, and therefore had to restrict myself top the essential points. The most important for me was to report to the parliament and to the invited organizations that address book fraud appears to be a German invention. Behind address book fraud, now active throughout the world, there are almost always German manipulators (Drahtzieher) and I believe that in Germany there are special conditions that are particularly favorable to address book fraud.
The particular German features that have enabled address book fraud to be so successful strong have also caused it to become a European and even a worldwide problem.
In Germany there is a legal distinction between the consumer and a trader. Whereas consumer protection is well developed, a trader is to a great extent left out in the cold.
There is a decision of the Federal Supreme Court that can be interpreted as an invitation to fraudsters to trick traders. In this decision it was stated that a trader must exercise particular care in signing documents. This which even prompted a judge in Düsseldorf to declare that a trader who signed as a result of a trick could have consulted a lawyer before signing. It was of course not known to the judge that even lawyers regularly fall for these trick forms.
In addition to the legal problems, Germany provides a particularly first class environment for address book fraudsters, and indeed economic fraudsters in general.
Germany - ideal for mafia-type networks
Address book fraudsters create mafia-type networks. They work with front men under the protection of service companies, shake off critics by company hopping and escape from the consequences overseas. Such mafia-type structures require overall secrecy, stealth and the special knowledge that only exists within the network.
Nothing is more harmful to dubious business practices than to be exposed to the harsh light of day. In Germany the fraudsters find the best conditions for such infrastructure.
Germany - the country of the muzzle
In German anyone can apply to have critical information forbidden, without a reasoned decision and without hearing the affected party.
This is not so readily possible in other democratic countries. Of course, also in Germany there are the usual promises found in a democracy that one can express one's opinion at any time, that information may not be suppressed. This is written in the constitution.
In Germany however, this constitutional right is not realizable in practice; a nice idea, but completely artificial.
There is a well-practiced legal structure which makes it possible to prohibit any opinion irrespective of whether it concerns information or opinion. The legal means is the "preliminary injunction" (Einstweilige Verfügung). Let us assume that a businessman has been criticized as being a fraudster on account of his dubious practices. He simply has to go to an attorney, sign a statutory declaration that he has an honest business and has never been convicted for fraud, and immediately a preliminary injunction is issued, which forbids one from calling this rogue trader a rogue trader or trickster. This happens without a court hearing and without asking the other party.
After that the other party can appeal, in which case there is a hearing in which he can prove that his statement was correct.
Theoretically he can, but it costs time and money, both of which the economic fraudsters have amply available, but not so the ordinary citizen.
Poisoning the constitution with ease
The practice of the preliminary injunction has another thorn in store for freedom of information, and this can be deadly for the expression of opinions. This is the basing of legal costs on "the value at stake".
It is a German phenomenon that the value at stake determines lawyers' and court costs. (The higher the value at stake the greater the legal costs), As far as I know this concept does not exist in other countries. With a preliminary injunction, the applicant can determine the value at stake.
In my case these sums regularly amounted to one hundred thousand euros and more, that is sums that lead to astronomical court costs. Who dares in these circumstances to publish any information or express any opinion?
These are the particularly German conditions, ideal conditions for economic fraudsters and address book tricksters who do not want their methods and accomplices to become known.
Unfortunately at this point in my lecture the Chairman indicated that my time had been exceeded, but I got the impression that the members of parliament present had understood.
The results of the meeting of the European Parliament
During the meeting it became clear that there were two basic positions.
One group was of the opinion that there were sufficient laws and that the problem was simply in implementation.
This group preferred an increased raising of awareness within the business community. In other words, the business community should be better informed and there should be a central European organization created that should help the business community to protect themselves against address book fraudsters.
The other group held the view that the law was not sufficient. An example was quoted from an ex-East block country of a firm belonging to the Ludenbach address book network that had won several court cases. Some courts there consider the wording is not deceptive and the successful decisions are then used to intimidate others into paying. In this way the tricksters are now earning millions. On the other hand, in Belgium the Ludenbach trick was given a clear rebuff by the court.
This shows that there is different legal treatment in different countries and that clearer laws are necessary in order to prevent in such miscarriage of justice as is now happening in the Czech Republic from occurring in the future.
The committee sat from 15:00 to 17:30 and in this short time discussed an astoundingly large number of aspects of the theme.
The next meeting will take place in October 2008.
I am from Berlin and therefore know the corridors of power first hand. Almost every week I pass the Government buildings by commuter train and regularly cannot prevent myself getting goose pimples.
This mixture of architectural pomp and bureaucratic utility is witness to the pride of a self-contained administration. This part of the city is structured like a machine and was built brand new on was what a bomb site to offer German citizens maximum efficiency in every aspect of administration, but it makes me scared.
The European Parliament in Brussels, however, is completely different. It is also a new edifice, but somehow fitted into the middle of a genuine old town at a genuine railway station. It seems to me more like a congress centre. The offices must be somewhere else, perhaps scattered throughout the whole city.
Inside people run around wearing black shoes and carrying backpacks, a strange combination. Where are the sleeve protectors? Where are the important faces in black suits? The safety procedures are relaxed and accreditation was quick and unbureaucratic - show your invitation, put on the name tag and welcome to the Plenary hall in which the committee meets. It is impressively professional. The round hall has outer walls with panes of tinted glass, behind each of which is a translator's cabin. How many languages Europe has! Despite this we can speak to each other without difficulty. These is not halls of power, these is halls of democracy.
So much for the atmosphere. A workshop is due to take place. The rappoteur of the parliament wanted to forge some ideas as to how to intervene in the problem of address book fraud. Where and how can and should the European Parliament become active to stop address book fraud.
Jules Woodell from stopecg.org spoke first. He had 3 minutes and made it even shorter. The law must be improved so that address book fraud can be punished throughout Europe.
Address Book Fraud - A German Invention?
After Jules Woodell it was my turn. I was prepared more for 10 minutes than for three, and therefore had to restrict myself top the essential points. The most important for me was to report to the parliament and to the invited organizations that address book fraud appears to be a German invention. Behind address book fraud, now active throughout the world, there are almost always German manipulators (Drahtzieher) and I believe that in Germany there are special conditions that are particularly favorable to address book fraud.
The particular German features that have enabled address book fraud to be so successful strong have also caused it to become a European and even a worldwide problem.
In Germany there is a legal distinction between the consumer and a trader. Whereas consumer protection is well developed, a trader is to a great extent left out in the cold.
There is a decision of the Federal Supreme Court that can be interpreted as an invitation to fraudsters to trick traders. In this decision it was stated that a trader must exercise particular care in signing documents. This which even prompted a judge in Düsseldorf to declare that a trader who signed as a result of a trick could have consulted a lawyer before signing. It was of course not known to the judge that even lawyers regularly fall for these trick forms.
In addition to the legal problems, Germany provides a particularly first class environment for address book fraudsters, and indeed economic fraudsters in general.
Germany - ideal for mafia-type networks
Address book fraudsters create mafia-type networks. They work with front men under the protection of service companies, shake off critics by company hopping and escape from the consequences overseas. Such mafia-type structures require overall secrecy, stealth and the special knowledge that only exists within the network.
Nothing is more harmful to dubious business practices than to be exposed to the harsh light of day. In Germany the fraudsters find the best conditions for such infrastructure.
Germany - the country of the muzzle
In German anyone can apply to have critical information forbidden, without a reasoned decision and without hearing the affected party.
This is not so readily possible in other democratic countries. Of course, also in Germany there are the usual promises found in a democracy that one can express one's opinion at any time, that information may not be suppressed. This is written in the constitution.
In Germany however, this constitutional right is not realizable in practice; a nice idea, but completely artificial.
There is a well-practiced legal structure which makes it possible to prohibit any opinion irrespective of whether it concerns information or opinion. The legal means is the "preliminary injunction" (Einstweilige Verfügung). Let us assume that a businessman has been criticized as being a fraudster on account of his dubious practices. He simply has to go to an attorney, sign a statutory declaration that he has an honest business and has never been convicted for fraud, and immediately a preliminary injunction is issued, which forbids one from calling this rogue trader a rogue trader or trickster. This happens without a court hearing and without asking the other party.
After that the other party can appeal, in which case there is a hearing in which he can prove that his statement was correct.
Theoretically he can, but it costs time and money, both of which the economic fraudsters have amply available, but not so the ordinary citizen.
Poisoning the constitution with ease
The practice of the preliminary injunction has another thorn in store for freedom of information, and this can be deadly for the expression of opinions. This is the basing of legal costs on "the value at stake".
It is a German phenomenon that the value at stake determines lawyers' and court costs. (The higher the value at stake the greater the legal costs), As far as I know this concept does not exist in other countries. With a preliminary injunction, the applicant can determine the value at stake.
In my case these sums regularly amounted to one hundred thousand euros and more, that is sums that lead to astronomical court costs. Who dares in these circumstances to publish any information or express any opinion?
These are the particularly German conditions, ideal conditions for economic fraudsters and address book tricksters who do not want their methods and accomplices to become known.
Unfortunately at this point in my lecture the Chairman indicated that my time had been exceeded, but I got the impression that the members of parliament present had understood.
The results of the meeting of the European Parliament
During the meeting it became clear that there were two basic positions.
One group was of the opinion that there were sufficient laws and that the problem was simply in implementation.
This group preferred an increased raising of awareness within the business community. In other words, the business community should be better informed and there should be a central European organization created that should help the business community to protect themselves against address book fraudsters.
The other group held the view that the law was not sufficient. An example was quoted from an ex-East block country of a firm belonging to the Ludenbach address book network that had won several court cases. Some courts there consider the wording is not deceptive and the successful decisions are then used to intimidate others into paying. In this way the tricksters are now earning millions. On the other hand, in Belgium the Ludenbach trick was given a clear rebuff by the court.
This shows that there is different legal treatment in different countries and that clearer laws are necessary in order to prevent in such miscarriage of justice as is now happening in the Czech Republic from occurring in the future.
The committee sat from 15:00 to 17:30 and in this short time discussed an astoundingly large number of aspects of the theme.
The next meeting will take place in October 2008.
Michael Plümpe
Labels: Address Book Fraud, Brussels, courts, Drahtzieher, Germany, legal, mafia-type networks, Michael Plümpe
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
A Second Trip To Brusels
It has been a year since I last visited Brussels and made my first presentation to the Petitions Committee
After a slow start, things have are on the move, Arlene McCarthy MEP has raised the matter in The Parliament, leading to a short debate. Commissioner Meglena Kuneva has written to member states that host guides and received responses from several, The Petitions and Internal markets Committees have both moved forward and Rapporteur, Simon Busuttil MEP, is starting to compile his report.
In short I arrived in a Brussels where there is a real head of steam on the matter and MEPs from all parties are showing determination that this scourge must be stopped. Do not thank me for this, thank your MEPs and most of all yourselves, everyone who has written to their MEP or petitioned the parliament has contributed, if you have not yet written, it is not too late, see the info at the end of this report
I got to the Accreditation centre at mid day, I was early and there was no pass for me but the problem was quickly resolved, I must compliment the way the staff of the committees work under considerable pressure, the agendas were constantly changing to fit with who could be present but at no time was I left in the dark as to what was going on.
Once inside I had 10 minutes to go over my presentation with Richard Corbett MEP, who has done so much to help over the years, then to meet Simon Busuttil, Rapporteur for the Petitions Committee, Mr Busuttil had obtained a copy of the printed European City Guide as a prop for the press conference and he and his assistant were busy thumbing the pages for Malta, They were clearly surprised at how many organisations they knew personally were listed.
It is a challenge I suggest any reader with a few minutes to spare takes up, visit
http://www.eurocityguide.com/ and look up your home town, see how many organisations that you know are listed. Now magnify that across the whole continent! Oh, and if you have the time, why not phone a few of those companies and see if they signed in error? If they did, please tell them about this campaign and get them to write letters of complaint.
After a quick look at the guide it was time to do the press conference.
You can read reports from the press conference here and here
Interview with Simon Busuttil conducted later the same day.
After The Press conference there was time for a quick coffee before hurrying down to the Petitions Committee. Vincenso had arrived from Italy, he is the instigator of the petition against the ECG, and he was also the first person to set up a website against the guide (way back in 2000).
Unfortunately the agenda was changed again to accommodate Irish petitioners who were in danger of missing their flights home and our presentations slipped towards the end of the day. I had just discovered that my presentation to the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) was on and the 2 were now in danger of overlapping
By the time we spoke our presentations were cut from 5 to 3 minutes, I scored out parts of my hard worked on speech but still got cut short before covering the main points I had on possible ways of partially extending the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and on the need for a central advice website. Vincenso faired better and was able to give some good data on the numbers of people affected in Italy
MEPs were then given just one minute each
See my detailed notes on MEP responses
As soon as the debate was over I had to run to catch the IMCO, here at last a longer opportunity to explain how the guides operate, what EU laws might work against them and the possible pitfalls of using such laws against a wily opponent.
This committee is investigating in greater detail what mechanisms might be used to tackle the scam guide problem. As I was preparing answers for questions I have not managed to make full notes on the proceedings.
The main questions received covered:
There were also useful suggestions on upcoming acts in the parliament and how they might help as well as the use of Self Regulatory Organisations (SROs)
What was most striking about returning to Brussels was the breadth and depth of MEPs understanding of the problem and the very clear cross-party resolve that these scams need to be stopped.
If you are affected by any of the guides listed on stopecg.org or by another business to business directory scam based in Europe, please make sure MEPs and the Commissioner are aware of your plight. Here is how.
What should you write?
StopECG encourages people complaining about the guides to send a short letter explaining your experiences, include comments on how this has affected you financially and emotionally. Has it caused strains within an organisation because one person signed in error and others must deal with the fallout? Have you lost sleep over the matter? Have you paid the guide and/or paid for legal advice? Have you suffered abusive phone calls from sham debt collection outfits?
With the letter please send scans of your correspondence with the guides/debt collectors and replies from national governments and or local authorities. If you feel a national or regional authority has replied in an unsatisfactory manner please flag that up in your covering letter.
EU Residents
Go to
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
and click the link for your country, you should then see a link in the top tabs for ‘Your MEP’, or ‘Your Representative’ Click this link and you will get a map of Europe.
(Lost? Here is the Map in English)
On the map, Click your country,
Some Countries list MEPs by region, navigate to your region and write to All MEPs who represent the region (Yes, there may be several)
Other countries list MEPs without noting the area that elected them, in this instance you may need to contact one at random and ask their assistance in letting you know which MEPs you should write to.
Non EU Residents complaining about scam guides based within the EU should write direct to the commissioner:
Meglena Kuneva
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Health and Consumer Protection
B-1049 BRUSSELS
Belgium
Please CC your letter to the Rapporteur
Simon Busuttil MEP,
Altiero Spinelli,
09E210,
60 rue Wiertz,
B-1047,
Brussels,
Belgium
For general advice on writing letters of complaint please visit the main Stopecg website
Jules Woodell, 3rd June 2008
After a slow start, things have are on the move, Arlene McCarthy MEP has raised the matter in The Parliament, leading to a short debate. Commissioner Meglena Kuneva has written to member states that host guides and received responses from several, The Petitions and Internal markets Committees have both moved forward and Rapporteur, Simon Busuttil MEP, is starting to compile his report.
In short I arrived in a Brussels where there is a real head of steam on the matter and MEPs from all parties are showing determination that this scourge must be stopped. Do not thank me for this, thank your MEPs and most of all yourselves, everyone who has written to their MEP or petitioned the parliament has contributed, if you have not yet written, it is not too late, see the info at the end of this report
I got to the Accreditation centre at mid day, I was early and there was no pass for me but the problem was quickly resolved, I must compliment the way the staff of the committees work under considerable pressure, the agendas were constantly changing to fit with who could be present but at no time was I left in the dark as to what was going on.
Once inside I had 10 minutes to go over my presentation with Richard Corbett MEP, who has done so much to help over the years, then to meet Simon Busuttil, Rapporteur for the Petitions Committee, Mr Busuttil had obtained a copy of the printed European City Guide as a prop for the press conference and he and his assistant were busy thumbing the pages for Malta, They were clearly surprised at how many organisations they knew personally were listed.
It is a challenge I suggest any reader with a few minutes to spare takes up, visit
http://www.eurocityguide.com/ and look up your home town, see how many organisations that you know are listed. Now magnify that across the whole continent! Oh, and if you have the time, why not phone a few of those companies and see if they signed in error? If they did, please tell them about this campaign and get them to write letters of complaint.
After a quick look at the guide it was time to do the press conference.
You can read reports from the press conference here and here
Interview with Simon Busuttil conducted later the same day.
After The Press conference there was time for a quick coffee before hurrying down to the Petitions Committee. Vincenso had arrived from Italy, he is the instigator of the petition against the ECG, and he was also the first person to set up a website against the guide (way back in 2000).
Unfortunately the agenda was changed again to accommodate Irish petitioners who were in danger of missing their flights home and our presentations slipped towards the end of the day. I had just discovered that my presentation to the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) was on and the 2 were now in danger of overlapping
By the time we spoke our presentations were cut from 5 to 3 minutes, I scored out parts of my hard worked on speech but still got cut short before covering the main points I had on possible ways of partially extending the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and on the need for a central advice website. Vincenso faired better and was able to give some good data on the numbers of people affected in Italy
MEPs were then given just one minute each
See my detailed notes on MEP responses
As soon as the debate was over I had to run to catch the IMCO, here at last a longer opportunity to explain how the guides operate, what EU laws might work against them and the possible pitfalls of using such laws against a wily opponent.
This committee is investigating in greater detail what mechanisms might be used to tackle the scam guide problem. As I was preparing answers for questions I have not managed to make full notes on the proceedings.
The main questions received covered:
- How Chambers of Commerce could help,
- The problems raised by regional governments having responsibility rather than national governments,
- How well cross border cooperation had worked in the past,
- Possible use of Class actions
There were also useful suggestions on upcoming acts in the parliament and how they might help as well as the use of Self Regulatory Organisations (SROs)
What was most striking about returning to Brussels was the breadth and depth of MEPs understanding of the problem and the very clear cross-party resolve that these scams need to be stopped.
If you are affected by any of the guides listed on stopecg.org or by another business to business directory scam based in Europe, please make sure MEPs and the Commissioner are aware of your plight. Here is how.
What should you write?
StopECG encourages people complaining about the guides to send a short letter explaining your experiences, include comments on how this has affected you financially and emotionally. Has it caused strains within an organisation because one person signed in error and others must deal with the fallout? Have you lost sleep over the matter? Have you paid the guide and/or paid for legal advice? Have you suffered abusive phone calls from sham debt collection outfits?
With the letter please send scans of your correspondence with the guides/debt collectors and replies from national governments and or local authorities. If you feel a national or regional authority has replied in an unsatisfactory manner please flag that up in your covering letter.
EU Residents
Go to
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
and click the link for your country, you should then see a link in the top tabs for ‘Your MEP’, or ‘Your Representative’ Click this link and you will get a map of Europe.
(Lost? Here is the Map in English)
On the map, Click your country,
Some Countries list MEPs by region, navigate to your region and write to All MEPs who represent the region (Yes, there may be several)
Other countries list MEPs without noting the area that elected them, in this instance you may need to contact one at random and ask their assistance in letting you know which MEPs you should write to.
Non EU Residents complaining about scam guides based within the EU should write direct to the commissioner:
Meglena Kuneva
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Health and Consumer Protection
B-1049 BRUSSELS
Belgium
Please CC your letter to the Rapporteur
Simon Busuttil MEP,
Altiero Spinelli,
09E210,
60 rue Wiertz,
B-1047,
Brussels,
Belgium
For general advice on writing letters of complaint please visit the main Stopecg website
Jules Woodell, 3rd June 2008
Labels: Brussels, campaign, European Parliament, petitions committee, Scam European city Guide
