Last Updated 22/07/2025 published 22/07/2025 by Hans Smedema

EU Ombudsman Complaint Hans Smedema Affair

EOWEB_COMPLAINT_ID: 52775

Submitted on: 21/07/2025 10:26:43
First name: Hans
Surname: Smedema
Country of residence: Spain
Nationality: Netherlands/Dutch
Tel.: +346xxxxxxx
From: [email protected]
Language of complaint: English

Please indicate if you are submitting the complaint on behalf of yourself or another person or entity: Myself

Against which European Union (EU) institution or body do you wish to complain?
European Commission

Does your complaint concern the handling of a request for access to documents by this EU institution or body?
No.

Does your complaint concern a failure by this EU institution or body to reply to your correspondence?
No.

Does your complaint concern employment-related matters with an EU institution or EU body?
No.

What is the decision or matter about which you complain? When did you become aware of it? Add annexes if necessary.
The complaint concerns the European Commission’s (Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, Unit C.4) repeated and dismissive refusal to address allegations of systemic Rule of Law and human rights violations in the Netherlands (Documents 1,2,3,4,5). The Commission’s stance, specifically its assertion of a lack of competence and characterization of the matter as only an “internal problem,” articulated in its Document 6-letter of July 16, 2025 (Ref. JUST.C.4.001/KDS/ms (2025)7825610s), constitutes the maladministration. Mr. Smedema became aware of this decision on July 16, 2025, upon receiving the Commission’s letter.

List of documents:
1 – EUCommission Standard Complaint form [EN] ID 84759.pdf
2- letter EUCommissionRefuseal.pdf
3- Reply Letter EU Commission to the Unit 4.pdf
4 – EU Commission SmedemaJust.pdf
5 – letter to EUCommission Juli 7 2025 URGENT RE-EVALUATION REQUEST.pdf
6 – EUCommission SmedemaJust16072025.pdf

Attachments:
1. MATTER_01_1 – EUCommission[EN] ID 84759.pdf – Original complaint letter to EU Commission
2. MATTER_02_2- letter EUCommissionRefuseal.pdf – Refusal by Unit 4 because only internal Dutch problem
3. MATTER_03_3- Reply Letter EU Commission to the Unit 4.pdf – Reply to Unit 4 it is not only internal but international and EU Members like Spain
4. MATTER_04_4 – EU Commission SmedemaJust.pdf – Again refusal, not competent not related to EU Laws
5. MATTER_05_5 – letter to EUCommission Juli 7 2025.pdf – reply with more evidence EU member Spain betrayed with false info
6. MATTER_06_6 – EUCommission SmedemaJust16072025.pdf – Again refusal, only internal problem not related to EU Laws! Close communication

In what way do you consider that the EU institution or EU body has acted incorrectly?
The European Commission has committed maladministration through its repeated and dismissive refusal to engage with grave and systemic allegations of state capture, profound human rights violations, and cross-border deception within the Netherlands. This maladministration stems from the Commission’s failure to recognize and act upon the profound implications of these allegations for core European Union law and values.

Specifically, the Commission’s actions are considered wrong for the following reasons:

• Failure to Uphold Principles of Good Administration: The Commission’s pre-emptive closure of communication, without thorough engagement or reassessment of the grave and systemic nature of the claims, demonstrates a lack of diligence, transparency, and responsiveness expected of an EU institution, denying due process at the administrative level.
• Failure to Act as Guardian of the Treaties (Article 17 TEU): The Commission’s narrow interpretation of its competence, dismissing the matter as purely “internal,” overlooks its fundamental responsibility to ensure the application of EU law and values. The allegations directly implicate foundational EU values, which the Commission is duty-bound to protect.
• Flawed “Internal Problem” Argument: The Commission’s assertion that the complaint is a purely “internal problem” is fundamentally challenged because the allegations directly impact core EU law and values:

1. Systemic State Capture (Article 2 TEU – Rule of Law): The allegations describe “State Capture,” which fundamentally undermines the Rule of Law, a foundational value enshrined in Article 2 TEU and is incompatible with EU membership. If the Dutch Ministry of Justice is “captured,” its capacity to uphold any law, including EU law and international human rights obligations, is compromised, posing a direct threat to the EU’s foundational values and operational integrity.
2. Breach of Sincere Cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU) and Erosion of Mutual Trust: The allegation that the Netherlands “knowingly provided false information(Smedema is Delusional, still ongoing! Hiding crucial information) to an EU Member state Spain” and to non-EU countries directly implicates Article 4(3) TEU, which mandates sincere cooperation and abstention from measures jeopardizing Union objectives. This provision of false information unequivocally undermines mutual trust, a vital structural principle for the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ), and is not an internal matter but a direct assault on inter-state relations within the Union.
3. Denial of Fundamental Rights as an Instrument of State Capture (Article 19 TEU, Article 47 CFR, Article 6 ECHR): The complaint details the systematic denial of legal representation(traumatised/PTSD victim has to do all 25 years legal work himself, while broke/ruined/in debt), rejection of police filing charges/reports, and prohibition of judicial investigations since 1972/2000 while deleting/manipulating evidence, violating the right to an effective remedy(EU Parlement, ECHR, UNCAT, America) and a fair trial. The alleged provision of false information to international courts, leading to rejections based on a fabricated “lack of domestic exhaustion,” constitutes an “abuse of process” by the state. These denials are integral components of the alleged “State Capture” mechanism, designed to ensure impunity.
4. Implications for Protection of EU Financial Interests (Article 325 TFEU): A Ministry of Justice compromised by systemic corruption is inherently “incapable of effectively combating fraud against the EU budget (PIF Directive, Article 325 TFEU),” directly linking the alleged systemic corruption to the protection of the Union’s financial interests and the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation.

What, in your view, should the institution or body do to put things right?

To put things right, the European Ombudsman is requested to:

1. Initiate an inquiry into the alleged maladministration by the European Commission (Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, Unit C.4) concerning its handling of this complaint.
2. Assess whether the Commission’s refusal to engage, particularly its assertion of a lack of competence, aligns with its duties as guardian of the Treaties and the principles of good administration, especially in light of the systemic and cross-border implications of the allegations.
3. Recommend that the European Commission re-evaluate its stance and engage substantively with this complaint, potentially leading to the activation of relevant EU enforcement mechanisms(EU Pilot) to address the alleged systemic breaches of the Rule of Law, fundamental rights, and sincere cooperation within the Netherlands.

Have you already contacted the EU institution or EU body about the matter you raise?
Yes.

Attachments:
1. CONTACTED_01_ECHR 2006 DutchStateCapture.pdf – ECHR 2005/6 case without being blocked(!) legal help
2. CONTACTED_02_AfwijzingECHR2006.jpg – Scan ECHR sentence based on false and manipulated information and my lack of understanding this huge case

Has the object of your complaint already been settled by a court or is it pending before a court?
Yes. ECHR 2005/2006 sentence was based on false manipulated Dutch information, withholding crucial information for me and while blocking(!) legal representation! Still after 25 years all legal work has to be done by me the victim against international and EU Laws. New information is about de facto State-Capture and criminal(!) obstruction since 1972 of Dutch justice by Dutch Secretary-General Joris D.(2002-2013). Ministry of Justice refuses for 25 years to investigate my torture UNCAT case in the Netherlands since 2000/1972 and Spain since 2008. Obstruction of Justice and much more see the Documents. I have huge evidence of continuous blocking of Filing charges, police not allowed(!) to investigate by letter from the Ministry of (In)Justice (Joris D.), and much more. Total files Blog hanssmedema.info at the moment are 675+ and consistent and logical. AI makes analyzing those files very very easy in 10 seconds 25 years. While trying to formulate ECHR 2005/6 I was secretly(!) drugged with the wrong antipsychotic. In 2009/2011/2012/2016 there were 2 defamation court cases against me, not by me for this case because no Lawyers dared to do this case based on fraud by the Ministry of Justice itself. In the Netherlands all evidence is apparently destroyed and people are made to believe I am delusional, also to Spain resulting in secret baby aspirin-antipsychotic, verbal evidence from 2022. The EU Commission must force the Netherlands to investigate this huge criminal torture case.

Please confirm that you have read the information below
Yes.

Do you agree that your complaint may be passed on to another institution or body (European or national), if the European Ombudsman decides that he or she is not entitled to deal with it?
Yes.