Lawsuit against CSSF Luxembourg
The Luxembourg Financial Supervisory Body, CSSF, has covered up Danske Bank and other Luxembourg based banks' criminal activity. We have proved/documented before CSSF that Danske Bank's subsidiary in Luxembourg, Danske Bank International, has not been and is not authorized to carry out its financial service in Norway. Despite this CSSF has allowed Danske Bank to continue its unlawful activity in Norway, from its HQ in Luxembourg. CSSF is this responsible for our loss. Below you will find our lawsuit (claim for damages and punitive damages totaling some € 72 million) against CSSF, and here is the original document.
1. Ms. Katalin Baranyi (PhD Scholar)
2. Mr. Herman J Berge (LLB)
- and -
Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF)
Director General, Mr. Jean Guill, on behalf of CSSF
A. INTRODUCTORY and STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Danske Bank International S.A. Luxembourg (the bank) has - during the period from 1995 through 2010 committed fraud against numerous international clients / investors, among them northern European pensioners owning unencumbered properties in
2. This particular case against Commission de surveillance du secteur financier (CSSF), and thus against the Luxembourg state / Government, arises out of the systemized deceitful and fraudulent financial activity which Danske Bank International S.A. has carried out during a period of at least 15 years, under the simulated supervision of CSSF. As a result of the bank's deceitful and fraudulent activity and CSSF’s misconduct, we, the Plaintiffs, have suffered substantial losses. On
3. Backdrop of the case: On
4. The Riis-family negotiated with Fokus Bank and agreed that the settlement amount was to be deposited in this bank with the intent to transfer it to Danske Bank International S.A. (Luxembourg) as soon as possible in order to protect the funds against the Norwegian Government which for decades had been instructing judges and by every other means available had been obstructing justice in order to take down the family and its partners / assistants.
5. Late in June 2003 Mr. Berge was partly rewarded for the settlement between the Government and the Riis-family, with some NOK 4 million, this in accordance with contracts between Berge and “Einar and Amelia Riis”.
6. In this regard Berge asked the representatives of Fokus Bank in
7. There was never any question or doubt that this account was anything else than a savings account. Thus no one in the bank even attempted to specify what kind of account this was, consequently we didn’t think of asking further questions either.
Later on we have learned that our agreements with the bank is governed by the Norwegian Law on Financial Agreements and Financial Service (Finansavtaleloven 1999), and that the bank pursuant to §15 of this law was obliged to inform us (in advance) of the different accounts available. Failing to give this information is a violation of §91, first section, of the said Act.
9. The same day Danske Bank International S.A. called us and wanted to discuss placement of the deposit. We were not interested in taking any risk, and as the bank’s representative suggested a long term investment in Norwegian and Danish bonds, we agreed upon his advice. These were long term bonds (2007 to 2009), nevertheless it didn’t take more than a few months before the bank suggested to sell these bonds and instead investing in something else. The illegal churning had started.
10. At this point we had though no idea that the bank had deceived us to deposit our funds in a “safe custody account” and not in what we thought was a savings account. This is obviously an infringement of the Finansavtaleloven §15, making this action a criminal offence pursuant to Finansavtaleloven §91, stipulating some three months in jail for such an offence.
11. Further developments in our relationship with the bank – deposits, Danske Bank International S.A.’s “management” of our savings account, and how the bank defrauded us of + €500.000 – is drawn up in our criminal complaints I to XXI submitted to the Procureur d’Etat (Public Prosecutor) and attached to this writ as Exhibit # 1 – 21. Here is a short list of the bank’s criminal activity referred to in the complaints documenting that the bank has:
Committed numerous violations on the Secrecy Act; Committed embezzlement and exploited our savings in illegal FX-trade; Wilfully misled us in regards to contracts, investments, transactions, and bank statements, and in this regard wilfully violated EU-law as well as Norwegian law on financial activity, thus committing fraud; Committed perjury; Led CSSF to commit perjury; Committed extortion; Led third party (law firm of Bonn Scmitt Steichen) to commit extortion; Unlawfully fabricating a default situation; Concealed documents, voice recordings and other information in an attempt to avoid investigation and legal sanctions against the bank and its staff, hence committing fraudulent concealment; Leaked protected personal information (confided to the bank) to third parties (or being accessory to such act); Provided unauthorized and thus illegal financial service for more than 15 years in other EEA-countries; Violated the MIFID regulations and in this regard executed transactions in violation of the MIFID regulations; Committed churning; deceived potential investors to sign unlawful contracts and agreements. This list does not intend to be exhaustive in regards to the crimes committed against us.
12. Simultaneously with the filing of the criminal complaints, we have petitioned CSSF to intervene. We have also continuously informed CSSF of the development in the case after it erupted late 2008, which – as the Court will observe – has led to nowhere.
13. Neither the public prosecutor nor CSSF has attempted to help us. On the contrary these two public institutions have done their outmost in protecting what we have learned to know is regarded as gross criminal activity. These allegations have been documented in our criminal complaints.
14. Facts of the case: On
There is no crisis (for you). Listen now; there is no crisis, just so you know it! 
15. Five days later, on
16. We immediately responded to the bank’s letter by our letters of October 20 and 24 2008.
17. The bank didn’t respond to our requests, thus we contacted CSSF on
Please find enclosed Exhibit 22: 271008 Letter to CSSF.
18. CSSF responded with their letter of
Please find enclosed Exhibit 23: 291008 Letter from CSSF.
Please find enclosed Exhibit 24: 111108 Letter to CSSF Power of Attorney.
20. CSSF intervened with its letter of
Please find enclosed Exhibit 25: 131108 CSSF letter to Danske Bank Copy to us.
21. Shortly after, on
22. During the Christmas break we learned that Danske Bank AS and its
Please find enclosed Exhibit 26: 070109 Letter to CSSF – Notice of organized crime - Madoff.
23. Two days later the bank responded to our previous letters from November 2008. In its response the bank made false and fraudulent statements on important issues of the case.
Please find enclosed Exhibit 27: 090109 Letter from the bank to CSSF – Bank officers provided CSSF with false statements.
24. These fraudulent statements were accounted for in our three letters to CSSF of
Please find enclosed Exhibit 28 - 30: 220109 Letter I II and III to CSSF – refuting the bank’s explanation.
25. As an obvious consequence to the bank’s fraudulent statements and our reaction to this, CSSF withdrew from the case the same day.
Please find enclosed Exhibit 31: 220109 Letter from CSSF – Announcing its withdrawal from the case due to our criminal complaint.
26. Subsequently we had all reasons to continue investigating the matter. In this regard we revealed that the bank had mislead us to sign a house loan in September/October 2006 (for the purpose of buying our house), of which in 2008 turned out to be an investment-scheme identical to the one applied in the fraud against northern European pensioners owning unencumbered properties in Spain, cited as a Multipurpose Loan Agreement (MPLA). In this regard we petitioned CSSF, in our letter of
Please find enclosed Exhibit 32: 290109 Letter to CSSF - Requesting legal opinion regarding MPLA.
27. At that point we also understood that something was wrong with the bank’s use of the term: “account manager”, “wealth manager”, as well as the assignment of them (to us). Consequently we petitioned CSSF, in our second letter of
Please find enclosed Exhibit 33: 290109 Letter to CSSF – Requesting response to numerous essential questions.
28. During our investigation we found that the bank had violated the MIFID Directive, and in this regard we petitioned CSSF, in our letter of
Please find enclosed Exhibit 34: 130209 Letter to CSSF – Requesting legal opinion regarding violations of MIFID.
29. At this point we got a growing suspicion that CSSF was aware of the bank’s unlawful financial activity and its rotten funds, that the bank was closely involved / affiliated with the Madoff-fraud, that CSSF was now protecting the bank and its criminal activity, and that we hence were exposed to foul play. In this regard we petitioned CSSF to grant us access to all relevant CSSF-logs, -journals and -records that could verify or disapprove our suspicion.
Please find enclosed Exhibit 35: 200209 Letter to CSSF – Requesting access to log/journal/record displaying correspondence between CSSF and the bank.
30. Further investigation into the matter brought us information about the bank’s fraudulent activity in
Please find enclosed Exhibit 36: 230209 Letter to CSSF – Notifying about the Spain-fraud, requesting relevant information.
31. CSSF did not respond to any of our petitions listed above.
Please find enclosed Exhibit 37: 120309 Letter from CSSF – Reopens the case – admit secret meeting with the bank – Perjury – Closes the case.
33. By this CSSF had arranged secret meetings with the bank, kept the meetings concealed and hence deprived us of our right to contradict the bank's arguments/claims. Furthermore it became clear that CSSF had committed perjury during an investigation in an attempt to cover up the bank’s criminal activity. CSSF's conclusion rests solely on the bank's allegations, and by this conduct CSSF had disqualified itself from further management of this matter. As a consequence we – in our letter to CSSF of
Please find enclosed Exhibit 38: 170309 Letter to CSSF – Complaints against secret hearing and administration – Invoking Conflict of interest – Petition access to document file.
34. CSSF did not respond to this petition.
35. In November 2009 a lawyer contacted us on behalf of the bank, claiming that we were in default and that we owed the bank some €553.000. The allegations were unfounded but nevertheless the bank started an unlawful sell-out of our securities. Hence we filed new criminal complaints against the bank and its staff, and as usual; we informed CSSF by dispatching copies of the criminal complaints.
Please find enclosed Exhibit 39: 260110 Letter to the Minister of Justice
38. The Minister of justice responded two days later, stating that it was not within his competence to act.
Please find enclosed Exhibit 40: 280110 Letter from Minister of Justice
39. The minister of Finance, Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, did not respond to our petition.
40. During the period from November 2009 through April 2010 we continued to file criminal complaints against the bank as a reaction to its continuous criminal activity. On
Please find enclosed Exhibit 41: 030510 Letter from CSSF - CSSF suggests a meeting.
41. The meeting was held
42. During the said meeting CSSF asked us to further elaborate on the issue and provide the institution with more documents, so on
Please find enclosed Exhibit 42: 250610 letter to CSSF - Follow-up meeting of 100610 – reminder of unanswered questions cf. section D.
Please find enclosed Exhibit 43: 150710 Letter to CSSF - Follow-up meeting of 100610.
44. CSSF responded to our petition on July 19 2010, declaring that the case had been reopened for the third time, this due to new information (make note that this information was not new as the bank had been sitting on these documents the whole time when in secret communicating with CSSF). CSSF also asked whether they could provide the bank with all documents we had dispatched to CSSF, this in order to get the bank’s comments.
Please find enclosed Exhibit 44: 160710 Fax from CSSF – Declares that the case has been reopened again.
Please find enclosed Exhibit 45: 200710 Letter to CSSF – Affirms that CSSF can contact the bank.
46. At this point – as a direct consequence of the bank’s criminal activity – our financial status was critical. In this regard we contacted CSSF and asked for assistance. Furthermore, as a follow-up to the third reopening of the case, we informed CSSF about the obvious: That these new elements which CSSF now claimed was the reason for their reopening, were nothing more than known information which the bank had been in possession of since before their first contact with CSSF. Consequently Danske Bank had been withholding / concealing important documents and information relevant to this case, information which should have been presented to CSSF in the bank's first letter of
Please find enclosed Exhibit 46: 300710 Letter to CSSF – Request for assistance
47. CSSF never answered this letter.
48. In their letter of
Please find enclosed Exhibit 47: 130810 Letter from CSSF – Requests more documents and provides us with questions already answered.
49. It became quite obvious to us that CSSF did not intend to do anything with the case, but to thwart our attempt to have the case investigated, wait this out and thus obstruct our rights. A few days later we were literally bombarded with unfounded claims, lawsuits and court orders, a bombardment which has continued up to present. CSSF was obviously aware of these planned actions against us, hoping that we would become too occupied with these attacks to pursue the investigation of the bank.
Please find enclosed Exhibit 48: 080910 Letter to CSSF – Comments to letter of 130810 - reminder unanswered questions – see our letter of 250610.
51. Two months later a bailiff sent us the secret decision of
52. Consequently we approached CSSF with our letter of
Please find enclosed Exhibit 49: 131210 Letter to CSSF – Asking CSSF whether they were informed about the secret decision.
53. CSSF responded a week later, with their letter of
Please find enclosed Exhibit 50: 201210 Letter from CSSF – Denies any knowledge of secret decision.
54. There is no information available indicating whether CSSF has closed the case against Danske Bank International S.A. or not.
B. STATEMENT OF CLAIM
55. CSSF was – at the latest in February 2009 – duly informed about the bank’s criminal activity, through our numerous letters, copies of criminal complaints, transcripts of voice recordings and other information. CSSF nevertheless refused to act upon this compromising and incriminating information. Instead of acting duly upon our reports and complaints, CSSF carried out secret meetings with the bank, planned how to stop our investigative progress and the complaint at large, concealed facts and obstructed a mandatory investigation. Furthermore CSSF deliberately chose to forgo information from us which could have stopped the unauthorized financial activity, broken the chain of frauds and thus minimized our loss in particular and damages in general. By not seizing documents and voice recordings at the bank's premises in 2008, or at the latest in February 2009, CSSF deliberately chose to forgo information which could have stopped the continuation of unauthorized financial activity, broken the chain of frauds and thus minimized our loss in particular and damages in general. CSSF has consequently deliberately and unlawfully obstructed an investigation and blocked us from uncovering the truth, hence inflicting huge economic loss on us.
56. CSSF and the Government were at the latest in January 2010 duly informed that the bank in question provided its clients in
57. CSSF has deliberately failed to react upon the bank’s fraudulent cross-border activity. In addition CSSF accepts – as documented above – that Danske Bank International S.A. still carries out unauthorized financial service in
58. CSSF’s misconduct is hence regarded at best as gross negligence. We will though argue and prove that CSSF is guilty of wilful misconduct motivated by the Governments interest in protecting the financial business against any probe / investigation / legal claims / litigation or its like. One direct product of this misconduct is that the Court of First Instance on May 21 2010 held a secret hearing and passed a secret decision ordering us to pay the bank in question close to ½ million Euro. This would never had happened if CSSF had conducted its supervisory and surveillance assignment in accordance with law.
C. Liability – Compensatory damages
59. It goes without saying that the numerous actions the authorities has launched against us the last few years – accepting international illegal attacks against us and in this regard depriving us of our right to contradict allegations, depriving us of our right to protection, depriving us of our right to defend ourselves against crimes, depriving us of our right to a fair hearing, holding secret hearings, passing secret decisions etc, all this as a consequence of CSSF’s misconduct – which stands as blatant violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights Art. 47 and ECHR Art. 6, comes very costly. The mere fact that it is nevertheless necessary, before a court of law, to point out these actions as violations of the Charter and the ECHR, is in itself a proof of the seriously underdeveloped legal / judicial system in
60. If a public officer deliberately does an act which he knows is unlawful and will cause economic loss to a party to – let’s say; a court case, there is no reason in principle why this party should identify a legal right which is being infringed or a particular duty owed to him/her, beyond the right not to be damaged or injured by a deliberate abuse of power by a public officer.
61. As a regulator CSSF knows the law, hence CSSF knew that the described actions are unlawful and would be regarded as crime if committed, and that their actions most likely would cause substantial economic loss to the Plaintiffs. The said regulator and its staff calculated the risk and potential consequences of being caught, and decided nevertheless to carry out the crime. CSSF has consequently demonstrated a serious contempt for the laws of which the regulator is set to serve and obey, indicating a totally corrupt and demoralized regulator. Liability has thus been determined for CSSF and consequently for the state of
62. The Minister of Justice, François Biltgen, as well as the Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, was at the latest by our letter of
63. The principal amount that is to be compensated correlates with the amount that we, by the secret default decision of May 21 2010, were ordered to pay to the Danske Bank International S.A. i.e. € 453.200. of which at present has increased to € 470.000. Furthermore due to the Defendants misconduct we have been forced to protect our interest and investigate the matter. This has been a full time job for Mr. Berge for 28 months, which we claim to be reimbursed. Mr. Berge claims to be reimbursed: € 300,- an hour, 9 hours a day, 5 days a week for 28 months (5.040 hours) = € 1. 512.000,-.
C. Pain-and-suffering damages
64. These actions which we have been exposed to have caused us pain and suffering. As argued above, the said actions have been committed with the intent to defraud and harm, which was successful achieved. We have been fighting the bank in question,
D. Recovery of lost opportunities – opportunity cost
65. Our total savings of approximately € 1 million was by deceit channelled into the bank for the sole purpose of defrauding us of that entire amount. This amount has in fact been seized by the bank since it was deposited, and at the latest since October 16 2006 when the bank deceived us to take up a house loan (for the purpose of buying a house in Luxembourg), of which later on turned out not to be a house loan but rather the bank’s fraudulent investment-scheme applied on the aforementioned pensioners defrauded in Spain. Wealth Manager Anne Kaupang Leighton’s fraudulent declaration to us in the midst of the crisis is quite telling:
- There is no crisis (for you). Listen now; there is no crisis, just so you know it!
66. cf. lunch meeting with the bank on
E. Punitive damages (exemplary damages)
67. The Defendant knows the law of which the assignment (supervision and surveillance) they are carrying out is regulated by. The Defendant has nevertheless calculated the risk of violating the law and decided to proceed with protecting the bank and thus the defraud of the bank’s clients.
68. A substantial punitive damages verdict is necessary to punish and deter CSSF from acting this way in the future.
69. If the Court finds from the evidence that the Defendant are guilty of wanton, wilful, malicious or reckless conduct that shows an indifference to the rights of the Plaintiffs, then we ask the Court to make an award of punitive (exemplary) damages in this case.
70. In order for the conduct of the Defendant to constitute wilfulness or wantonness, their acts must be done under circumstances which show that they were aware from their knowledge of existing conditions that it was probable that injury/damage would result from their acts and omissions, and nevertheless proceeded with reckless indifference as to the consequences and without care for the rights of the Plaintiffs.
71. The Court must find that the harm to the Plaintiffs was the foreseeable and probable effect of the Defendant’s behaviour, but it is not necessary to find that the Defendant deliberately intended to injure the Plaintiffs. It is sufficient if the Plaintiffs prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the Defendant intentionally acted in such a way that the natural and probable consequence of their act was injury to the Plaintiffs. This has been proven. The conditions for inflicting punitive damages are fulfilled, and we thus request the Court to make an award of punitive damages in order to prevent the reoccurrence of such conduct by the said regulator.
72. The amount of punitive damages which will have a deterrent effect on the Defendants by counterclaim in the light of the Defendant’s financial conditions, and the seriousness of the said conduct, and of which the Court is asked to award, is set to € 50 million.
F. Procedural issues: Conventional rights – Self-representation and Service of judicial documents
74. Although it is beside the point here, it has to be noted that there are no lawyers in
75. Self-representation in court and Service of judicial documents in the EU – Facts in short: 1) Danske Bank International S.A. has in collaboration with CSSF, the Public Prosecutor, the commercial court and the Minister of Justice and Finance defrauded us of all our savings. 2) We have been sued by the bank. 3) We wish to defend ourselves against the perpetrators, and get back our savings and whatever we according to law are entitled of in compensation. 4) We also see the need to file claims for damages against some of the perpetrators for their wilful misconduct and criminal acts, deliberately depriving us of our rights. 5) We do not speak the French language. 6) The bailiffs in Luxembourg refuse to serve our writ of summons, appeals and other judicial documents arguing that we are not represented by a lawyer, and 7) The bailiffs furthermore refuses to serve documents to us in a language which we understand, hence depriving us of our right to know, understand and to defend ourselves.
76. The Law – Conventions guaranteeing fair and public hearing: The United Nations UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Art. 10 reads as follows:
“Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”
77. ECHR Art. 6 (1) reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
78. EU-Charter Art. 47 reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the
Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented.
Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.”
79. The variety of the different guarantees comprised under the umbrella term of "fair trial" is extensive. In this certain matter there are at least four guarantees which are relevant:
- Access to court
- Fairness - Equality of arms
- Public hearing
- The principle of self-representation – be advised, defended and represented
80. The guarantees of a fair trial – “Access to Court”: So, what is “access to court”? What does that mean?
81. Access to a court is a basic precondition of a fair legal process, and requires not only that a court is existing, but that such a court is in fact accessible for the plaintiff pursuant to the standards developed by the European Court of Human Rights with regard to Article 6 (1). This understanding is also adopted by the European Court of Justice.
82. Right of access to court was for the first time recognized by the ECHR in the case Golder v.
“It would be inconceivable that Article 6 (1) should describe in detail the procedural guarantees afforded to parties in a pending lawsuit and should not first protect that which alone makes it in fact possible to benefit from such guarantees, that is, access to a court. The fair, public and expeditious characteristics of judicial proceedings are of no value at all if there are no judicial proceedings.”
83. In the Ashingdane case (Series A no. 93) the ECHR stated that, although limitations may be imposed:
“it must...be established that, the degree of access afforded under the national legislation was sufficient to secure the individual’s right to a court; having regard to the Rule of Law in a democratic society...the limitations applied must not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired...Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 (1) if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.”
84. If a plaintiff chooses to present his/her case in person, and the authorities rejects his/her attempts of going to court arguing that he/she must be represented by a lawyer, then the plaintiff has de facto no access to court and the Government is facing complaints for violating the above mentioned provisions.
85. If a party to a legal dispute does not understand or speak the language of the court of which he/she wants to present the matter to in person, then this party obviously have no chance of filing a lawsuit to try his/her rights. Depending on the party’s economical stand, this problem can be redressed by the court, offering the party an interpreter. Should the court refuse to comply with a request for an interpreter, then we are left with the conclusion that the party has no access to court, and the provisions mentioned above has been violated.
86. The degree of access to the court in
87. One can conclude that we will never be – at least not under the present regime – granted any judicial proceedings in
88. Fairness - Equality of arms: The case law of the European Court of Human Rights regards the principle of equality of arms as part of the guarantee of a fair trial and has reiterated with respect to the adversarial nature of civil procedure, that it requires a just balance between the parties, even when one of the parties is the State. Thus, the
“...every party to a case must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place the party at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the opponent.” See in this respect, ECHR, Kaufman v.
89. Accordingly, the ECHR considers this principle to include the idea of “a just balance” between the parties. Thus, the ECHR has held that the principle of equality of arms equates to the right to present the case to a court in equal conditions.
90. In light of this situation, the European Court of Human Rights found that:
“...according to the principle of equality of arms, as one of the features of the wider concept of a fair trial, each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case in conditions that do not place him at a disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent.” Cf. ECHR, Foucher v.
91. In Ruiz Mateos v.
“…the principle of equality of arms is only one feature of the wider concept of a fair trial, which also includes the fundamental right that proceedings should be adversarial.”
92. The Court went on to add that:
“…within the context of proceedings on a civil right to which persons belonging to that circle are a party, those persons must as a rule be guaranteed free access to the observations of the other participants in these proceedings and a genuine opportunity to comment on those observations.” Cf. ECHR, Ruiz Mateos v.
93. ECHR has indicated that the principle of “equality of arms” requires that parties in judicial proceedings be able to examine the witnesses of the opponent, be informed of the reasons for administrative decisions, be able to appeal them, and have the right to challenge decisions on equal terms. See, in this respect, ECHR, X v.
94. It is a fact that Danske Bank International S.A. has acted deceitfully and has defrauded us and numerous other persons in
95. In addition to the many economic problems occurring in the wake of bank-fraud cases – e.g. defrauded and drained clients being forced to liquidation – a protective system has been established to obstruct any attempts from deprived parties (who still wants to fight for their rights) to go to court and have their rights tried.
A few words needs to be said about one particular situation of which the banks in
96. Firstly this has been done by instructing the public prosecutor to shelve all criminal complaints against institutions, firms and well known persons in
97. Secondly all court officers have been instructed that anyone that wants to have their rights tried in a court in Luxembourg, shall be forced to do so through a Luxembourg lawyer, only (who obviously is servile to the system), and that this has to be carried out in French. Since close to all documents in a conventional bank-fraud case in
98. As a rule one is by the above mentioned provisions guaranteed free access to the adversaries’ observations and a genuine opportunity to comment on these observations. So far so good, but what if these observations are drawn in a language which the defendant doesn’t understand? In that case the observations would be of no value, the same would go for the guarantees of free access to observations and the opportunity to comment on them. The only way to redress this problem is to translate the documents, or to provide the defendant with an interpreter, cf. ECHR Art. 6 (3), litra e. Luxembourg authorities has vigorously rejected all our requests of translating judicial documents, hence leaving us in a legal vacuum totally deprived of our right to defend ourselves.
99. We have not been afforded the opportunity to present our case under such conditions that do not place us at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the opponent in this matter. On the contrary; unlike the adversaries in this matter we are not afforded any opportunities at all to present our case, thus facing a totally unbalanced litigation which clearly gives the adversaries / the offenders an advantage you will (hopefully) not find in many other constitutional states. It goes without saying that such said litigation is a blatant violation of the principle of equality of arms.
100. The observer will notice that the Government is in full control over the (all too few) bank clients who are not willing to obey to this crime-protective system. On
101. Anyhow, we can now clearly see the outline of an unfair preparation for an unfair trial. The Government, its institutions and what the country bases its existence on – the numerous foreign companies – can with ease rely on the five primary obstacles: CSSF, the public prosecutor, the courts, the language and the lawyers, which makes any legal process against any perpetrators linked to this “social set” of people quite unfair.
102. In short this is the unfair regime we are living under in Luxembourg: The authorities have; refused to investigate obvious crimes in spite of conclusive evidence; shelved close to 30 criminal complaints in this regard; concealed documents and voice recordings proving the crimes; put us under continuous covert surveillance; instigated illegal court proceedings; carried out secret court proceedings; obstructed any attempts of ours to challenge these proceedings, hence obstructed any attempts of defence, etc. This means that we have been given no chance whatsoever to examine witnesses or documents of the adversaries, to be informed of the reasons for any decisions, to be able to appeal these decisions, or the right to challenge these decisions. In fact we have been left tied up in the dark quarter of this crime-protective system, without any possibility to defend ourselves. If fairness and equality of arms have ever existed within the legal system of
103. Public hearing: This requirement, that the court be open to the parties, in the sense of ensuring the personal presence of the parties or their representatives, is the focal point at which all the strands of a sensible conception of the public hearing requirement come together and from which all the other aspects derive their full power and meaning, cf. ANSELM FEUERBACH, Betrachtung über die Öffentlichkeit und Mündlichkeit der Gerechtigkeitspflege, Gießen, 1821&1825, para.i, at 96.
104. If a party to a court case does not understand or speak the language of the court, and the court ignores his/her requests for an interpreter and his complaints of unfair trial, the conditions of “public hearing” have not been met. If this is the case, the court is obliged to redress this problem by offering the party an interpreter. Should the court refuse to comply with this demand, then we are left with the conclusion that the party has no access to court, thus there are no public hearing and the provisions mentioned above has been violated.
105. The principle of self-representation – be advised, defended and represented: According to the above mentioned provisions everyone is entitled to have his/her rights tried by a court of law. It goes without saying that a holder of legal rights has a right to defend these rights, in person, whether inside or outside court.
106. In regards to criminal cases this has been more explicitly stated in ECHR Art. 6 (3) litra c. For the Court’s information, this – that it seems that this is a conventional right only for the accused – does obviously not mean that a defendant or a plaintiff in civil matters has lost this right.
107. According to the EU-charter Art. 47 (2), second sentence, a party is guaranteed a right to be advised, defended and represented. This means that a party to a lawsuit is guaranteed a right to defend himself in person, and if he so choose he has the right to be advised, defended and represented as well. Self-representation in the courts is a worldwide recognized principle. Any party to a court case has thus the right to defend his/her rights in person or through legal representation of own choosing.
108. A problem occurs when a party to a court case does not speak or understand the language of the court. This will, as stated earlier, easily be redressed by providing the party with an interpreter. Authorities in
109. Conclusion and demands: In conclusion this means that we are – in accordance with the aforementioned provisions – entitled to be granted access to courts in
110. The bailiffs’ argument that our writ of summons can not be served as long as we are not represented by a lawyer is a violation of all of the above mentioned provisions. Furthermore, the bailiffs in Luxembourg are not judges but merely – besides standing as by far the largest organization of debt-collectors in the country – messengers of the court where their duty is to serve the court and the parties, or rather; the users of the court. The bailiffs are thus in no position to decide upon whether a writ of summons is admissible or not.
111. As the bailiffs in
112. Oral hearing: The Defendant has wilfully kept documents and voice recordings secret. Furthermore the Defendant has refused to comply with our motion for discovery, hence essential facts have still not been revealed. According to the ECHR and the EU-Charter we are entitled to an oral public hearing before an independent and impartial court of law. The Luxembourg Court of First Instance and its officers have, previously, wilfully and effectively deprived us of this right. Should the judges of the Court of First Instance still believe that European citizens have no conventional rights in Luxembourg, we would then like to remind the Court that this is not so. We will thus claim that we have a conventional right to an oral hearing, of which shall take place in the Court of First Instance.
G. Causes of action against CSSF
113. As described in detail above and in the documentation enclosed, the Defendant has committed deceit and/or fraud and/or negligence and/or gross negligence in the course of fulfilling its duties as the single regulator in the financial market in
114. Had the Defendant conducted its surveillance and supervisory assignment in accordance with law, had it withheld its unlawful active support to the bank and refrained from preventing actions/probes/investigations against the bank (hence protecting the bank), had it intervened to prevent the bank from committing fraudulent acts, or had it not committed negligence itself, Danske Bank International S.A. would not have been in a position to carry out or maintain its fraudulent activity, and the Plaintiffs would therefore not have been harmed. The Defendant is liable for the results of its tortious or quasi-tortious acts, and the Plaintiffs therefore seek judgment against the Defendant as compensation for the damages they have suffered.
115. In the main hearing we will argue that CSSF and hence the Luxembourg Government has the sole responsibility for the national financial crisis and is partly responsible for the global financial crisis.
116. On these grounds the Plaintiffs therefore request that this Court:
- declare that this Complaint presents a valid claim;
- declare that the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant is valid on the merits;
- declare that the Plaintiffs - In accordance with The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Art. 10, the ECHR Art. 6 (1) and the EU-Charter Art. 47 – has a right to present their claim in court, in person;
- appoints an interpreter;
- award compensatory damages, by reason of the actions described above, in the amount of € 1.982.000 (Euro-one-nine-eight-two-zero-zero-zero) and order the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiffs the entire amount stated;
- award Pain-and-suffering damages, by reason of the actions described above, in the amount of € 10.000.000 (Euro-one-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero) and order the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiffs the entire amount stated;
- award opportunity cost, by reason of the actions described above, in the amount of € 10.000.000 (Euro-one-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero) and order the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiffs the entire amount stated;
- award Punitive damages, by reason of the actions described above, in the amount of € 50.000.000 (Euro-five-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero) and order the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiffs the entire amount stated;
- open this case for class action;
- order the Defendant to pay all or part of the costs and expenses of these proceedings;
- order the Defendant to pay interest up to and after the date of judgment in accordance with the terms of the applicable law;
- award such further and other relief as the President may advise and that this Honourable Court may deem just;
The Plaintiffs expressly reserve their right to serve in due course any other legal or natural person who has acted under or on behalf of CSSF. The Plaintiffs expressly reserve their right to assert other claims or causes of action.
Katalin Baranyi Herman J Berge
PhD Scholar LLB
DATED in Luxembourg this 31st day of January 2011; delivered by fax and mail by the Plaintiffs whose address for service is Mr. Herman J Berge and Ms Katalin Baranyi, 665 rue de Neudorf, L-2220 Luxembourg.
1. Jean Guill, on behalf of CSSF
You have been sued. You are a Defendant. You have as many days as the Luxembourg Civil Procedure act provides you with to file and serve a Statement of Defence. You or your lawyer must file your Statement of Defence in the office of the Clerk of the TRIBUNAL D’ARRONDISSEMENT DE LUXEMBOURG [
WARNING: If you do not do both things within the time given, you may automatically (by default judgment) lose the law suit. The Plaintiffs may get a Court judgment against you if you do not file, or do not give a copy to the Plaintiffs, or do either thing late.
Address for Service of Defendant will be:
- Jean Guill: 110, route d’Arlon, L-2991 Luxembourg
Katalin Baranyi Herman J Berge
PhD Scholar LLB
DATED in Luxembourg this 31st day of January 2011; delivered by fax and mail by the Plaintiffs whose address for service is Mr. Herman J Berge and Ms Katalin Baranyi, 665 rue de Neudorf, L-2220 Luxembourg.
 European Economic Area (EEA)
 Copenhagen Post Online, January 26 2010
 Viking Schiffsfinanz AG (aka Viking Bank)
 “Dagny Amelia Olsen (
 Situated in
 Demonstrated by a letter of
 As the Norwegian Government illegally had black listed Mr. Berge and in this regard was obstructing justice, his business and all legal activities he was engaged in, it was essential – for protection purposes – to have these funds transferred out of Norway as soon as possible.
 Late December 2003, Mr. Riis deposited some NOK 20 million with the Danske Bank International S.A. We have later on learned that Danske Bank International S.A. – within a period of only three months – had defrauded close to NOK 2 million of this deposit, forcing Mr. Riis to end his relationship with the bank and transfer what was left of the funds to BNP Paribas, Monaco. This transfer was carried out in mid March 2004. Simultaneously the person responsible for defrauding this accountholder was shipped back to
 According to the public prosecutor all activities referred to are of lawful nature in
 This meeting has been recorded and transcribed by us, nevertheless the bank denies all incriminating statements made during this meeting.
 Kaupang Leighton did not mention with a word that she had placed parts of our savings in the Lehman Brothers-USB-Madoff-Fraud-Scheme and that all this was lost at the time of her statement.
 Markets in financial instruments directive
 Both of them were assigned by the bank as our wealth managers.
 CSSF, Public Prosecutor and the courts.
 If CSSF or its predecessor had conducted its supervision and surveillance according to law, CSSF or its predecessor would have revealed this fact on the threshold of the bank’s unlawful activity.
 This fact has been duly documented in previous correspondence with the said institutions as well as in this writ.
 Writ of summons, claims for damages against the judges and others for having carried out a secret hearing and passed a secret decision ordering us to pay the bank in question almost ½ million Euro, filed to the Court of First Instance on November 16 2010.
 Hence it is put in the hands of the lawyers in
 A minister of the Government had been fined for tax fraud. A
 Please note that the said provisions do not narrow down this right to: “…through a legal representative.”
 In case of Fischer v.