Following our revelations last week into Ms Antonyia Parvanova MEP and Vice-President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), and her campaign against Commissioner Designate Jeleva, it has become suspected that Ms Parvanova was less motivated by homour, then a desire to help her friend, Commissioner Kuneva keep a high profile job, far from their native Bulgaria. Kuneva, wished to remain a Commissioner, but despite the pleadings of President Barroso, the Bulgarian government decided to nominate their own candidate, Ms Jeleva. And so the plot began.

Ms Kuneva was elected as an MEP, but in a moment of supreme self sacrifice, declined to take up her seat and stay on as Commissioner, telling the press that, her decision not to enter the European Parliament was "above any personal ambitions and agenda" and it was important for Bulgaria to have a Commissioner and that her only desire was "to better serve Bulgaria". She also claimed that she would be better placed to fulfil her election pledges as a Commissioner than as a lowly MEP. This raises several questions, aside from hubris. If she wasn't going to take her seat, why did she stand at all? More importantly, as Commissioners swear an oath to act impartially and put aside national interests, how does that fit in with her patriotic urges to stay on to serve Bulgaria?

Ms Parvanova then went into overdrive on behalf of her friend, throwing documentation and allegations around until, despite Jeleva being cleared of all the accusations, the plot worked and the Commissioner Designate made a dignified resignation. One can only imagine the look on Parvanova and Kuneva's faces when the Bulgarian government declined to legitimise their skullduggery and put forward Kristalina Georgieva instead. There are rumours that President Barroso, who seemingly has a strong attachment to the attractive Ms Kuneva, is considering making her one of his top advisers.

In the meantime Ms Parvanova is counting the cost of playing with fire. Her accusations have been discredited and she hasn't had the kudos of claiming a scalp for the Parliament and her group, but is increasingly looking like damaged goods. Several journalists have privately described her as having "lost the plot". ALDE seem to be casting her adrift, claiming the leadership had no involvement, knowledge or anything to do with Ms Parvanova's antics. But there are questions that need to be asked of ALDE and especially of their Group leader, Guy Verhofstadt. Is there any actual leadership or is the group a 'do whatever you want' organisation? Is it really true that, as ALDE spokesmen claim, that they had no knowledge at all of the Parvanova accusations? That they were never mentioned? Did ALDE back, explicitly or implicitly Kuneva's campaign to keep her seat at Barroso's table?

for there only seem to be two options, either Parvanova is obeying group orders, or is a loose cannon. Neither option makes the group, or its leader look like the good, decent people they claim to be.

Irish journalist, Martin Dillon, broke the story of the behind the scenes machinations and has discussed the affair with Parvanova. His full email exchange with Dr. Parvanova can be found on

The Questions and Answers

Email 1

Dear Mrs. Parvanova, 

I have evidence related to your dealings with Mr. Kallas I am prepared to publish it but first I would like to give you a chance to answer the questions below. I asked you when you wrote to me today would you be prepared to answer questions. You did not reply, and as the saying goes, “time waits for no man.”   I am assembling my material and you have 12 hours to answer the questions before I send my article to media outlets. I am giving you more time than Mrs. Jeleva was given before the hearing. And you must know what I am referring to.  I hope you will be responsive.
 
1.       Do you have a member of your staff named Etienne Maury?
2.       Why did you contact Mr. Kallas regarding Mrs. Jeleva?
3.       Why did you not contact the Chairman of the Commission instead of Mr. Kallas?
4.       Do you and Mr. Kallas belong to the same party?
5.        Did you inform Mrs. Jeleva about your findings and, if so, how many days before the hearing?
6.       Under what authority, or whose authority,  did you investigate Mrs. Jeleva?
7.       Why did you not inform the Chair of the hearings before making your allegations?
8.       Do you consider your actions a breach of E.U. Rules?
9.       Did you inform the Bulgarian legal authorities about your investigation of Mrs. Jeleva?
 
Regards,
Martin Dillon

Email 2

 Dear Mr Dillon,

Thnak you very much for your answer. I am a person who has always been keen on clarifying the facts that are reported with regards to my political activities and statements and I would like to take the opportunity to do so with this email. With regards to the hearing of Ms Rumiana Jeleva, I would like to present you with my point of view and the information that has been brought to my attention so far. I hope that this will provide you with a satisfactory clarification for the questions you may have on this issue.

As you may know, Ms Jeleva's declaration as a Minister of Foreign Affairs - and any omissions therein - has been first debated in the Bulgaria parliament and publicly reported by the media since the autumn of 2009; due to being brought forward by the chairperson of the Committee on Anti-Corruption, Conflict of Interests and Parliamentary Ethics, Mr Yane Yanev. In her capacity as Member of the Bulgarian Government, Ms Jeleva was required to declare any ownership of companies at present and for the last 12 months prior to the beginning of her mandate. Such declarations are published on the website of the Bulgarian Parliament and are publicly available. The debate iniated by Mr Yanev has not been proceeded any further and didn not lead to any clarification, since shortly after his statement, Mr Yanev has been dismissed from his position following a GERB majority vote in the Bulgarian Parliament. Unfrotunately, this political interference did not allow a proper clearance of the case.

As you may also know, the co-President of the Greens in the European Parliament, Mr Daniel Cohn-Bendit, has made a statement today that already in December he warned about the lack of consistency of Ms Jeleva's declarations during a press conference. Later on in January, the Financial Times Deutshland and the Bulgarian electronic media, have published details from the publicly accessible Bulgarian Trade Registry and well as Ms Jeleva's declarations, undoubtedly contradicted each other proving that she did not declare ownership in companies as it is required by law in the template declaration. Following Mr Cohn-Bendit press conference and reports in the media, all political groups have been aware of and discussed this issue. As for all other Commissioner-Designates, a particular attention has been given to documents personally signed and submitted to the Commission and the European Parliament as part of her Ms Jeleva's official profile in advance to the hearings.

As you can see, on her CV for Commissioner-Designate Ms Jeleva stated that she was a managing director of the company Global Consult Limited for the period 2001- 2003 and 2006-2007 - neither share ownership has been mentioned, nor the management of any other company. The Bulgarian media and politicians have already brought to the public attention the discrepancies of Ms jeleva's documents and the Bulgarian Trade Registry which is publicly accessible. The Bulgarian Trade Registry indeed indicates that Ms Jeleva has been managing director of Global Consult from 2001 to 2004 and from 2006 to 2009.

There is absolutely no doubt that such facts were contradicting Ms Jeleva's statement of being accurate and precise in her declaration and documents. Furthermore, the different declarations of interest filled by Ms jeleva when Member of the European Parliament (from 2007 to 2009), did not report constitently her ownership of Global Consult and her activities within Global Consult and Etko Schneiders. These latter facts have been reported by the Parliament Legal Services as "discrepancies". Further details about the second company, Etko Schneiders, have been disclosed yesterday by the EU online newspaper Euractiv.

As you can see, all the information refering to Ms Jeleva's financial interests are based on public and publicly available legal documents. One cannot speak about conspiracy when a simple comparison is drawn between Ms Jeleva's declarations and official public records. It is more than a common practice for all politicians in Bulgaria and in Europe to be accountable and transparent towards citizens, the civil society and the media.

Since you have followed the hearing of Ms Jeleva, you can attest that most of the political group coordinators, in their introductory statements, asked Ms Jeleva to clarify these public facts and apparant discrepencies. Ms Jeleva evaded this issue during her opening speech, and refused to provide further details while she has been repeatedly asked to do so. You will have noticed that the ALDE group coordinator did not even mention the issue, and I did not had any intention to take to floor during the hearing. This can be easily checked with the list of speakers for the hearings, negotiated and approved well in advance by all political groups' coordinators. I have been given the floor following a point of order, as request by Mr Ivo Vajgl, after Ms Jeleva accused me of spreading rumors. I did not have any choice but to say anything about the truth and state the facts that have been public for months. If not so, I would have been seen as aide in her attempt to conceal an issue already publicly debated in Bulgaria, especially when refering to the Bulgarian institutions in reference to her integrity. Instead of making a scandal, she could have simply present her apologies for the inaccuracy of her declaration and promise that in her capacity as a Commissioner she will be more precise in the future.

As a reference to your article, I would like to point out the following two clarifying facts:

1- As all this information is public, as well as the following debate, any kind of communication between the different institutions of the European Union can not in any way be considered conspiracy or "bitchiness or callousness". On the contrary, this is just the basic application of the guiding principles of the EU which are notably the rule of law and transparency. Ms Jeleva's problems are orignating from her own behaviour and the documents signed by her.

2- I do not have any involvement in the accusation propagated against Ms Jeleva's husband and his alleged relations with the mafia, or any infromation published in international newspaper in this matter.

Your records as a journalist clearly demonstrate that you have a reputation of a person guided by the principles of truth and professionalism, and I am confident that you will fairly consider the thorough clarifications provided by this email. Thank you very much, this is everything that I had to say about this issue. I do not wish to further dwell on this issue, since as a Bulgarian, the debate has been contentious and has not been resolved in Bulgaria in due time instead of being brought forwardat the EU level.

My best regards,

Antonyia Parvanova

Email 3

Dear Mrs. Parvanova,

Thank you for clarifying some matters for me though your email raises red flags about a number of claims you make.

I have read the legal opinion issued yesterday by the parliament’s legal secretary, which clears Mrs. Jeleva of any wrongdoing. In fact, it confirms that she was not in breach of the commissioners’ code of conduct. That would seem to me to present a prima facie argument for stating that your position vis a vis her declaration was untenable from the moment you made your assertions. Further, the legal opinion states that discrepancies can be the result of omission.

You claime there was a debate in the Bulgarian Parliament about Mrs. Jeleva’s declaration. That is incorrect. The former chairperson of the Committee on Anti-Corruption, Mr. Yanev, whom you refer to in your letter, was sacked from that position. If I am correct, he made a public statement that he had found problems with declarations by five ministers.

You allege that Mr. Yanev’s dismissal was the result of a GERB majority vote. There was no interference from GERB and no special parliamentary committee debate referring to Mrs. Jeleva.

You state that yesterday Mr. Cohen Bendit claimed he raised the issue of inconsistencies in Mrs. Jeleva’s declaration last December. That claim is untrue. Mr. Bendit waxed lyrical about Mrs. Jeleva’s husband and his alleged affiliation with the Mafia but did not make one mention of Mrs. Jeleva’s declaration.

The first mention of Global Consult was made by you and, if as you suggest, it was spontaneous on your part, why did you read your speech in the plenary?

You mentioned a disclosure yesterday by Euractiv. Surely, even you must acknowledge that it was used by BSP against Mrs. Jeleva. As for its chief, GOTEV, was he not a former correspondent of the communist newspaper, DUMA?

You make no mention of your relationship to Mr. Siim Kallas. I was astounded to learn yesterday that the Press Officer in CAB-KALLAS angrily asserted to a New Europe reporter that Mr. Kallas did not know you. Is that really possible considering yours and his political affiliations?

Why did you send emails to him regarding Mrs. Jeleva and not to Mr. Barroso or to Mrs. Eva Joli?

Can you tell me if there are other emails beyond the one your Parliamentary Assistant (head of Office), Etienne Maury send on January 7 to CAB-KALLAS? According to Regulation (EC) No: 1049/2001 (OJL 145, 31, 05, 2001, every citizen of EU should have public access to documents issued by MEPs and Commissioners.

I note you did not answer the list of questions I provided in my last email to you. Could you please respond to those questions and to my rebuttal and questions in this email.

Regards,

Martin D.
www.martindillon.net