Press Release
Abuse of Power by DUO:
Revealing Systematic Discrimination Against Romanian Students in the Netherlands
"De eindoplossing voor het Roemeense probleem"
For those who prefer German: „Die Endlösung der Rumänischen Frage”
– A phrasing that dangerously echoes the dark past of the 20th century, when others applied -
„Die Endlösung der Judenfrage”
Introduction
A series of declassified documents reveal how DUO (Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs, The Dutch Student Finance Agency) orchestrated a systematic campaign to exclude Romanian students from study funding, using abusive tactics, false information, and administrative manipulations. These actions were carried out without legal grounds, without the approval of the Ministry of Education of the Netherlands, and in direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of the rule of law.
Furthermore, DUO and the National Ombudsman of the Netherlands illegally collaborated to prevent Romanian students from exercising their rights, gravely violating European legislation on data protection and the principles of administrative fairness.
What Evidence Do We Have? Declassified Documents
This page presents essential internal DUO documents that expose these abuses and explain their impact on the hundreds of affected Romanian students.
Letter from the government
Publication following Woo request for student loan applications Romanian students GCRS
Petitioners
Submitter
E.E.W. Bruins, Minister of Education, Culture and Science
Date:17 January 2025
Number:24724-244
Permanent committee for education, culture and science
Letter from the government
Scrisoare din partea guvernului
Publicație în urma solicitării Woo pentru cereri de burse de studiu Studenți români GCRS
Petiționari
Solicitant
E.E.W. Bruins, Ministrul Educației, Culturii și Științei
Data:17 ianuarie 2025
Număr:24724-244
Comisia permanentă pentru educație, cultură și știință
Scrisoare din partea guvernului
Key Findings from the Declassified Documents
1️⃣ Decisions Without Ministry Approval: DUO rejected Romanian students’ funding applications without the approval of the Ministry of Education, later forcing a favorable response from the minister.
2️⃣ Fabrication of Evidence: DUO altered internal documents to falsely portray students’ activities as illegal, despite their compliance with European legislation.
3️⃣ Severe GDPR Violations: Both DUO and the Ombudsman unlawfully shared students' personal data. DUO disregarded a negative ruling from the Ministry of Education, while the Ombudsman forwarded individual complaints containing personal information to DUO.
4️⃣ Media Manipulation & Political Pressure: DUO used misleading press articles to justify blocking student funding, influencing political decisions in the process.
5️⃣ Systematic Discrimination: Internal documents reveal that DUO and the Ombudsman referred to Romanian students' cases as a “Romanian problem” (Roemenenzaken), preemptively applying negative rulings without proper individual analysis, leading to systemic discrimination against them.
.
The Prime Minister of the Netherlands Must Resign!
🔹 Our Demands:
1️⃣ Ignoring the Ministry of Education’s Negative Opinion
🔸 The Ministry explicitly stated that DUO did not have the right to share students’ data with other institutions, yet DUO did so anyway.
🔸 Instead of complying with the law, DUO actively sought justifications to violate data protection regulations.
2️⃣ Fabricating Accusations and Making Decisions Without Evidence
🔸 Declassified documents clearly show that DUO knew there was NO EVIDENCE against Romanian students.
🔸 Despite this, they administratively executed students by denying them funding based on “suspicions” without any legal basis.
3️⃣ Misleading the Ministry of Education and Other Authorities
🔸 DUO deliberately misled or provided incomplete information to justify their decisions.
🔸 They created the illusion of “fraud” being proven, even though their internal documents admit they had no evidence.
4️⃣ Orchestrating an Administrative Campaign to Exclude Romanian Students
🔸 Instead of handling cases individually, DUO made a collective decision against Romanian students, which constitutes institutionalized discrimination.
🔸 Romanian students were treated differently than other international students, applying double standards in a blatant act of prejudice.
5️⃣ Illegally Sharing Student Data with Other Institutions
🔸 DUO violated GDPR by transmitting students’ personal data without their consent.
🔸 Even more alarming, they ignored their own internal warnings about the legal and political risks of such actions!
6️⃣ Illegally Colluding with the Dutch Ombudsman
🔸 Instead of remaining impartial, the Ombudsman consulted DUO before making decisions on Romanian student cases.
🔸 In reality, the Ombudsman and DUO collaborated to protect each other, eliminating any pretense of impartiality and undermining public trust.
7️⃣ Defying Dutch Authorities That Confirmed GCRS and Students Were Acting Legally
🔸 DUO ignored the conclusions of serious Dutch institutions such as Inspectie SZW, FIOD, Belastingdienst, IND, SVB, Arbeidsinspectie, and KvK, all of which found no fraud.
🔸 Despite this, DUO continued to reject student applications and block their rights.
8️⃣ Neglecting the Human and Academic Consequences
🔸 This administrative execution left hundreds of students without financial support, forcing many to drop out of their studies.
🔸 DUO set a dangerous precedent, treating Romanian students as criminals without a shred of proof.
9️⃣ Using Nazi-Inspired Language in Internal Documents
🔸 The expression “De eindoplossing voor het Roemeense probleem” emerged from the collaboration between DUO and the Ombudsman, where DUO applied a “final solution” to what the Ombudsman referred to as “the Romanian problem.”
🔸 When translated into German, this phrase becomes “Die Endlösung der Rumänischen Frage”, dangerously reminiscent of “Die Endlösung der Judenfrage”, a phrase used in Nazi Germany.
🔸 It is absolutely unacceptable for two Dutch state institutions—DUO and the Ombudsman—to collaborate in implementing what amounts to an ethnic cleansing policy in administrative form.
💡 Conclusion:
DUO officials must not only be immediately dismissed but should also face legal consequences for their actions. This is not an administrative error—it is a systematic abuse of power that demands a full investigation and severe sanctions!
For illegally collaborating with DUO in decision-making, despite being required to act as an impartial arbitrator.
Instead of investigating administrative abuses and the systematic discrimination against Romanian students, the Ombudsman enabled and validated DUO’s illegal decisions.
Even more alarmingly, the Ombudsman’s office illegally shared students’ data with DUO, violating GDPR, and contributed to enforcing a “final solution” for the so-called “Romanian problem”. This kind of conduct is unacceptable in a country that claims to be a model of the rule of law!
To make matters worse, a declassified document proves that the Ombudsman was actively sending DUO negative press articles about Romanians, reinforcing prejudices and allowing DUO to label them as criminals without any evidence.
In essence, the Ombudsman functioned as a press agency for DUO rather than protecting the rights of affected citizens—a blatant betrayal of its core mission!
Despite being fully aware of DUO’s severe legal violations, the Dutch Ministry of Education failed to intervene, allowing administrative abuse to continue and failing to protect the rights of Romanian students.
What did the Ministry know and ignore?
🔸The Ministry’s own negative advisory opinion against DUO’s illegal transmission of student data to other institutions—this declassified document confirms that the practice was deemed illegal by the ministry itself.
🔸DUO had no real evidence, yet proceeded to block students’ funding based solely on unfounded suspicions, violating legal principles.
🔸The major political and legal risks that this scandal posed for the Netherlands—acknowledged in the ministry’s own risk analysis, which warned of the dangers of such a decision.
Why should they resign?
🔸 For allowing these abuses to continue—The Ministry had the power and responsibility to stop DUO but chose not to intervene.
🔸 For obstructing access to education for Romanian students—By ignoring the abuses, they left hundreds of students without funding, despite their legal eligibility.
🔸 For undermining the rule of law—In a country that claims to be a model of legal compliance, the Ministry of Education chose to ignore an administrative execution based on media articles rather than solid evidence.
The Dutch Minister of Education must take responsibility and resign immediately!
In a true rule of law, prosecutors base investigations on evidence, not on media articles. However, Document 6 reveals that DUO attempted to persuade the Dutch prosecution service to open a case against Romanian students, but it was rejected for a simple reason: there was no evidence!
🔸 The statement “Het is de vraag of het OM deze zaak zal oppakken.” (“It is questionable whether the prosecution will take up this case”) clearly proves that even the Ministry of Justice knew that the case had no legal grounds.
How was this possible?
🔸 How could DUO execute an administrative crackdown on hundreds of Romanian students without evidence, deliberately violating the Ministry of Education’s decisions?
🔸How could DUO ignore the investigations of FIOD, Belastindiest, and KvK, which confirmed that GCRS’s activities were fully legal?
If a ministry allows such abuses and has no control over its own institutions, then this is no longer a rule of law, but an administrative dictatorship!
The Dutch Minister of Justice must take responsibility and resign immediately!
If the Dutch Minister of Education was caught running DUO as a tool of administrative repression, and if the Minister of Justice allowed serious abuses against Romanian students while ignoring oversight institutions such as FIOD, Belastindiest, and KvK, then what remains of the rule of law in the Netherlands?
🇳🇱 The Dutch Parliament voted against Romania’s accession to Schengen, claiming that “Romania is not a state governed by the rule of law.”
But looking at how the Netherlands treats its citizens and European students, we ask: is this what the rule of law looks like in the Netherlands?
A system where:
🔸 Administrative decisions are based on media articles, not on evidence.
🔸 Institutions like DUO ignore their own regulatory authorities and break the law.
🔸 A political scandal is manufactured at the expense of a vulnerable group, just so that a politician can gain electoral capital.
Is this the Dutch rule of law? Is this the image of a country that lectures others on justice?
🔹Then we sincerely hope that 🇷🇴 Romania does not take this as an example!
The Prime Minister of the Netherlands must take responsibility for this corrupt system and RESIGN!
Pieter Omtzigt must resign and permanently withdraw from political life!
Why? Because he built his election campaign on a fabricated scandal, relying on fake news, political manipulation, and institutionalized discrimination against Romanian students.
👉 He turned fake news into a “national scandal”
👉 He promoted an anti-Romanian rhetoric during his election campaign
🔸 During his campaign period, Dutch media began publishing articles with headlines like “Fraud with DUO money by Romanian students”, implying that Romanians were involved in illegal activities. A political campaign built on stigmatizing a vulnerable group.
👉 He ignored all evidence proving that Romanian students were innocent
👉 He directly contributed to the Netherlands’ decision to vote against Romania’s Schengen accession
🔸 At the same time he was promoting this fabricated scandal, the Netherlands voted against Romania’s Schengen accession, citing that “it is not a rule of law.”
👉 He permitted and encouraged the systematic discrimination of Romanians within DUO
‼️ Conclusion: A dangerous politician for Europe
❌ Used lies and political manipulation to build his career.
❌ Contributed to the destruction of the careers of hundreds of Romanian students.
❌ Defamed Romania and used this scandal to influence the Schengen vote.
❌ Ignored official documents proving that DUO acted illegally.
📢 P!ieter Omtzigt must RESIGN and be permanently removed from political life!
Such a political approach, based on manipulation and xenophobia, has no place in the European Union.
The Dean of Tilburg University must immediately resign due to his erroneous statements and biases against Romanian students, made without verifying the facts and without adhering to the academic principles of impartiality and fairness.
🔹 Why is this unacceptable?
🔸 Instead of basing his stance on facts and evidence, the dean contributed to the stigmatization of Romanian students, indiscriminately adopting the unfounded accusations propagated by DUO and the Dutch media.
🔸 He indirectly supported discriminatory measures, instead of protecting academic rights and equal access to education for all students, regardless of nationality.
🔸 He violated the fundamental principles of the academic environment, which require objectivity, responsibility, and the protection of students against any form of discrimination.
🔹 What did he do wrong?
🔸 Instead of investigating and verifying the information with the competent authorities, he chose to take a public stance based on assumptions and prejudices.
🔸 He completely ignored the fact that numerous regulatory institutions – Inspectie SZW, FIOD, Belastingdienst, IND, SVB, Arbeidsinspectie, and KvK – have verified and confirmed that the activities of the students and GCRS were perfectly legal.
🔸 Through his statements, he contributed to an environment of academic and social discrimination against Romanian students.
🔹 What does this mean for the academic community?
🔸 An academic leader who makes judgments without factual basis has no place at the head of a higher education institution.
🔸 Such an attitude compromises the credibility of Tilburg University and calls into question its commitment to academic ethics.
📢 Therefore, we demand the immediate resignation of the Dean of Tilburg University!
If academic institutions wish to maintain their integrity, they must be the first to sanction such behavior and uphold the principles of fairness and justice in education.
Madam President Ursula von der Leyen,
we urgently request your intervention!
🔹 What do we demand??
🔹 We request an immediate review of all student funding applications that were illegally rejected by DUO, in accordance with EU regulations on free movement and students’ rights.
🔹 Romanian students must be compensated for the financial and academic damages they suffered due to these administrative abuses.
🔹 The EU must ensure that such violations will not occur in any other member state.
🔹 A fast-track appeals process should be established for affected students, ensuring that they receive a fair and expedited resolution without the need for prolonged legal battles.
🔹 The European Commission should set up an independent monitoring body to oversee cases of discrimination in student financing across the EU, ensuring transparency and accountability.
🔹 A public report should be issued detailing the full extent of DUO’s abuses, along with clear recommendations for preventing future violations against international students.
🔹 We request an official statement from the European Commission and President Ursula von der Leyen regarding the abuses committed by DUO and other Dutch institutions against Romanian students.
🔹 The Netherlands, as an EU member state, must uphold the principles of the rule of law, data protection, and fundamental rights of EU citizens.
🔹 We urge the European Commission to assess whether these abuses constitute violations of EU law on free movement, equal treatment, and data protection, and to initiate an official investigation into the actions of DUO and the Dutch Ombudsman.
🔹 We call for a European mechanism to oversee and prevent administrative abuses against international students in all EU member states.
🔹 The EU must impose clear sanctions against the Dutch institutions that violated the rights of Romanian students and take measures to prevent the recurrence of such discriminatory practices.
🔹 We request that this case be included on the agenda of the European Parliament for a public debate on the protection of EU students’ rights within national funding programs.
🔹 We call on the European Union to initiate a comprehensive and impartial investigation into the illegal practices of DUO, the Ministry of Education, and the Dutch Ombudsman, which have led to the systematic discrimination of Romanian students.
🔹 The investigation must thoroughly examine: – Manipulation of administrative decisions – how DUO and other institutions orchestrated the denial of student funding based on unfounded suspicions and political influences.
🔹 The investigation must thoroughly examine: – Serious GDPR violations – the illegal transmission of students’ personal data to various institutions and its unauthorized use.
🔹 The investigation must thoroughly examine: – Discrimination based on nationality – the application of different standards and rules for Romanian students compared to other European students.
🔹 We request that this investigation be conducted by an independent body, such as the European Data Protection Board or a special report by the European Commission, to ensure transparency and objectivity in the findings.
🔹 It is essential to determine whether these practices also affect other groups of European students and to establish a permanent monitoring mechanism to prevent administrative abuses in national student funding programs.
🔹 If the investigation confirms systematic violations of EU law, we demand official sanctions against the Netherlands for failing to uphold the rule of law and breaching European treaties on free movement and non-discrimination.
🔹 An independent European control structure is needed to monitor and regulate the activities of DUO and equivalent institutions in other EU member states, in order to prevent abuses and violations of students’ rights.
🔹 The current system is vulnerable, allowing arbitrary decisions and systemic discrimination without a European mechanism to intervene promptly in such situations.
🔹 We propose the creation of an independent authority with the following responsibilities:
🔸 Monitoring how member states apply EU legislation on free movement and equal access to education.
🔸 Ensuring GDPR compliance and sanctioning violations related to the unlawful processing of student data.
🔸 Introducing a European-level appeal procedure, so that students affected by administrative abuses do not have to rely solely on national justice systems, where there is a risk of political or administrative influence.
🔹 Such a mechanism would prevent future violations, protect students’ rights, and ensure the fair and uniform application of EU legislation across all member states.
🔹 We urge the European Parliament and the European Commission to initiate a legislative framework to prevent abuses and discrimination in education financing systems.
🔹 If the Netherlands refuses to address these abuses and provide compensation to the affected students, we call for legal and financial measures against the Dutch government.
🔹 The European Union must demonstrate that the rule of law applies equally to all member states, without exceptions or double standards.
🔹 The Netherlands has actively criticized and blocked the accession of other EU states to Schengen under the pretext of insufficient adherence to the rule of law. Yet, the documents we present prove that the Netherlands itself has engaged in severe violations of EU regulations, GDPR, and fundamental rights.
🔹 If Romania and other Eastern European countries were subjected to years of judicial monitoring under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), then the Netherlands must also be held accountable for its actions.
🔹 We demand that the European Commission initiate an infringement procedure against the Netherlands if it fails to:
🔸 Reverse its discriminatory administrative decisions;
🔸 Compensate the affected students for their financial and academic losses;
🔸 Implement structural reforms to prevent such abuses from occurring again.
The European Union cannot afford to tolerate hypocrisy when it comes to fundamental rights. If the Netherlands fails to comply, the EU must respond decisively, just as it has done with other member states in cases of legal and democratic backsliding.
🔹 We call on the European Commission to launch an official investigation into the serious violations of EU law committed by Dutch institutions, particularly DUO, the Ministry of Education, and the National Ombudsman.
🔹 The Netherlands has systematically violated European regulations, setting a dangerous precedent that must be sanctioned to protect the rights of all EU citizens. The key violations include:
✅ Serious GDPR Violations
🔸 DUO and the Ombudsman illegally transferred students’ personal data to other institutions, despite a negative opinion from the Ministry of Education confirming that this practice was illegal.
🔸 Dutch authorities ignored their obligations regarding data protection, and students were never informed about how their personal data was used.
🔸 Despite the legal risks acknowledged internally by DUO in declassified documents, the illegal transfer of data continued, demonstrating a deliberate violation of EU law.
✅ Systematic Discrimination Against Romanian Students
🔸 The Netherlands violated the principle of equal treatment, a fundamental pillar of the EU, by treating Romanian students differently from other EU students.
🔸 Administrative decisions were made based on nationality, without individual analysis, contradicting the freedom of movement and equal access to education.
🔸 The term “Romanian problem” (“Roemenenzaken”), used in official documents, clearly demonstrates intentional discrimination, not just an administrative oversight.
✅ Administrative Abuse Through Politicized and Baseless Decisions
🔸 DUO rejected student applications without any evidence, despite internal documents confirming that there was no proof of fraud.
🔸 The Ministry of Education was misled into approving decisions that violated EU regulations.
🔸 Decisions were influenced by political pressures, particularly in the context of parliamentary elections and Pieter Omtzigt’s campaign, where this fabricated scandal was used to gain electoral capital.
🔹 If these violations are confirmed, we request that the European Commission initiate an infringement procedure against the Netherlands, which could result in:
🔸 Financial sanctions for the Dutch government if it fails to correct these abuses.
🔸 A mandatory review of all affected students’ applications and compensation for the financial and academic damages they suffered.
🔸 Strict monitoring of EU citizens’ rights in their interactions with national administrations.
🔹 The European Union must prove that its rules apply equally to all member states. If Romania and other Eastern European countries were rigorously monitored for the rule of law, the Netherlands must be held to the same standards!
Congratulations to the authorities who refused to be manipulated and demonstrated professionalism!
This list clearly proves that the fraud allegations were completely fabricated, and all independent institutions have confirmed the legality of our activities.
📢 If these institutions validated the legality of our activities, then why did DUO, the Ombudsman, and Dutch officials act against these conclusions and orchestrate an administrative abuse without evidence?
The truth is now clear: DUO and the politicians involved must be held accountable for these abuses!
🏅 Award for Professionalism and Integrity – FIOD
The Fiscal Information and Investigation Service (FIOD) is the Dutch government agency responsible for investigating financial crimes. It operates under the Tax and Customs Administration, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance of the Netherlands. (Wikipedia)
Given the professionalism and integrity demonstrated by FIOD in accurately assessing the GCRS situation, we call on the Ministry of Finance of the Netherlands to officially recognize the efforts and objectivity of this agency.
🏆 Why does FIOD deserve this recognition?
🔸 Analyzed facts impartially and refused to initiate investigations without evidence.
🔸 Demonstrated commitment to the rule of law, in contrast to other Dutch institutions that orchestrated an administrative abuse.
🔸 Resisted political and media pressures, focusing only on facts and legality.
🔹 An Example of Impartiality and Fairness
Such recognition would underscore the commitment of Dutch authorities to justice and impartiality, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based investigations rather than unfounded accusations promoted by other institutions.
🎖️ Award for Professionalism and Integrity
Inspectie SZW (Dutch Labour Inspectorate)
🔹 Demonstrated impartiality and respect for the law by concluding that there was no legal basis for a criminal investigation against Romanian students.
🔹 Resisted political or administrative pressure and upheld the principles of the rule of law.
We call on the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment to publicly acknowledge the professionalism of Inspectie SZW and condemn DUO’s attempts at manipulation!
🎖️ Award for Professionalism and Integrity
Belastingdienst (Dutch Tax Agency)
🔹 Demonstrated objectivity and adherence to legislation by confirming that all activities complied with tax regulations.
🔹 Resisted external pressures and applied the law fairly and correctly.
We call on the Dutch Ministry of Finance to officially acknowledge the professionalism of Belastingdienst and condemn DUO’s attempts at manipulation!
🎖️ Award for Professionalism and Integrity
KvK (Dutch Chamber of Commerce)
🔹 Demonstrated transparency and objectivity by verifying and confirming the legality of freelancers’ registrations.
🔹 Resisted external pressures and correctly applied commercial regulations.
We call on the Dutch Government to officially acknowledge the professionalism of KvK and condemn DUO’s attempts at manipulation!
🎖️ Award for Professionalism and Integrity
IND (Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service)
🔹 Demonstrated objectivity and impartiality by confirming the legal status of Romanian students and their activities.
🔹 Resisted external pressures and correctly applied legislation regarding residency and work rights.
We call on the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security to officially recognize the professionalism of IND and to condemn DUO’s attempts at manipulation!
🎖️ Award for Professionalism and Integrity
SVB (Dutch Social Insurance Bank)
🔹 Demonstrated impartiality and thoroughness in assessing freelancers’ social contributions.
🔹 Confirmed that there were no compliance issues, correctly applying existing legislation.
We call on the Dutch Government to officially recognize the professionalism of SVB and to condemn DUO’s attempts at manipulation!
🎖️ Award for Professionalism and Integrity
Arbeidsinspectie (Dutch Labour Inspectorate)
🔹 Demonstrated objectivity and professionalism by thoroughly assessing the facts before making a decision.
🔹 Determined that there were no grounds for an official investigation, correctly applying labour regulations.
We call on the Dutch Government to officially recognize the professionalism of Arbeidsinspectie and to condemn DUO’s attempts at manipulation!
.
Abuse of Power by DUO:
Revealing Systematic Discrimination Against Romanian Students in the Netherlands
"De eindoplossing voor het Roemeense probleem"
On January 17, 2025, following a Woo request, several official documents were published. Out of the 216 declassified documents, we present some of them below to give you an initial overview of what we are about to expose. We leave it up to you to decide whether the principles of the rule of law have been violated.
In the document sent by DUO to the Ministry of Education, the application of "the final solution, option 2" was requested.
In the document from the Ombudsman, the very institution that should combat discrimination at the European level, Romanians are labeled as "the Romanian problem." („Roemenenzaken”)
„De eindoplossing voor het Roemeense probleem” – or, for those who prefer German, „Die Endlösung der Rumänischen Frage” – is the phrase that Dutch authorities deemed appropriate to address the situation of Romanian students.
This expression inevitably recalls "Die Endlösung der Judenfrage", the Nazi regime's plan for the extermination of the Jewish population.
⚠️ We are not saying that DUO and the Ombudsman intended a genocide, but their administrative method follows the same dangerous pattern: identifying an ethnic group as a "problem" and implementing a "final solution" through systematic and abusive measures.
In a European Union that presents itself as a model of fundamental rights, such deviations cannot be tolerated. Dutch authorities must be held accountable for this discriminatory approach and for administrative decisions based on national prejudices.
💬 We are curious whether the DUO officials who applied "De eindoplossing voor het Roemeense probleem" were rewarded or promoted, just as, a century ago, those who implemented "Die Endlösung der Judenfrage" were.
sursa: 106 _Afstemming beslismemo GCRS_geanonimiseerd.pdf
Dear all,
Regarding the processing of applications (for extensions) from journalists for GCRS, … and I a and I prepared a memo. The memo consists of a summary-decision making part and a more detailed elaboration so that the considerations and facts can be easily found.
In summary, the facts
In summary, the memo is about the handling of applications from journalists working for the company in Sweden and claiming study financing because they are EU entrepreneurs. There was an article about this in the Uk newspaper and questions were asked in the Chamber. There are many signs (since 2018) that there is no real economic activity. However, economic activity is a condition for entitlement to study financing. It has proved very difficult to address this situation.
Proposed decision
The final solution is to propose to reject (option 2) because it is the least bad option of the options 1. suspend, 2. reject and 3. grant. Stake is that we manage to stop claims through journalistic work GCRS completely. This will also prevent future misery for students.
This decision includes as many perspectives and views from all areas as possible. There seems to be support for the proposed position reject everything.
Proposed follow-up is that … makes a decision, that we further then submit it to MOCW for information. Only then can an actual decision be communicated to the student. Defaults we will take for granted for the time being.
If you wish, can you comment on this proposal and the attached draft letter by Tuesday 12:00?
Kind regards,
Dragă tuturor,
Cu privire la gestionarea cererilor (de prelungire) din partea jurnaliștilor pentru GCRS, … și eu o și am pregătit un memoriu. Memoriul constă dintr-o parte de rezumat-decizie și o elaborare mai detaliată, astfel încât compromisurile și faptele să poată fi găsite cu ușurință.
Rezumatul faptelor
Pe scurt, memoriul se referă la gestionarea cererilor depuse de jurnaliștii care lucrează pentru compania din Suedia și care solicită finanțare pentru studii deoarece sunt antreprenori din UE. A existat un articol despre acest lucru în Ukrant și au fost ridicate întrebări în Cameră. Există multe semne (din 2018) că nu există o activitate economică reală. Cu toate acestea, activitatea economică este o condiție pentru dreptul la finanțare pentru studenți. S-a dovedit foarte dificil să se abordeze această situație.
Decizia propusă
Soluția finală este să propunem respingerea (opțiunea 2), deoarece aceasta este cea mai puțin rea dintre opțiunile 1. suspendare, 2. respingere și 3. acordare. Miza este că vom reuși să oprim complet revendicările prin munca jurnalistică GCRS. Acest lucru va preveni, de asemenea, mizeria viitoare pentru studenți.
Această decizie încorporează cât mai multe perspective și opinii din toate domeniile posibile. Se pare că există sprijin pentru poziția propusă care respinge totul.
Urmarea propusă este că … ia o decizie, pe care o aprofundăm, apoi aceasta este înaintată MOCW pentru informare. Doar atunci poate fi comunicată o decizie reală studentului. Notificările implicite le luăm deocamdată ca atare.
Dacă doriți, puteți comenta această propunere și proiectul de scrisoare atașat până marți la ora 12:00?
Cu stimă,
sursa: 24 _RE roemeense 'journalisten'_geanonimiseerd.pdf
Hi
To stop grants we indeed need proof that something is wrong. If there are payment receipts I don’t think we can do it anyway if there is no hard evidence that something is wrong. I don’t really understand where this is coming from. What I understand is that it happens that there are no payment receipts and possibly more than normal. What I have discussed with … discussed is that we were going to talk more broadly about whether we should do something with that signal and how. A newspaper article is also a signal but I wonder what you can do with it.
Bună
Pentru a opri acordarea de finanțări, avem într-adevăr nevoie de dovezi că ceva nu este în regulă. Dacă există chitanțe de plată, nu cred că putem face asta oricum dacă nu există dovezi clare că ceva este greșit. Nu prea înțeleg de unde vine asta. Ceea ce înțeleg este că se întâmplă să nu existe chitanțe de plată și, eventual, mai multe decât în mod normal. Ceea ce am discutat cu … discutat este că urma să discutăm mai pe larg dacă ar trebui să facem ceva cu acel semnal și cum. Un articol de ziar este, de asemenea, un semnal, dar mă întreb ce se poate face cu el.
sursa: 172 _RE Roemenenzaken_geanonimiseerd.pdf
sursa: 160 _RE standaardtekst in aantal verzoeken_geanonimiseerd.pdf
sursa: 182 _Klachten over DUO bij de No_geanonimiseerd.pdf
doc 172
Hi
Just now I discussed with . …. already briefly discussed the ‘Romanian problem”. I understood that DUO has been working on this for quite some time and that these people are going to get a (rejection) decision soon.
Can I get some concrete info from you, in addition to this? Then my colleagues can proceed with the cases we have received.
Kind regards,
doc 160
I found an article online that does remind me a lot of this. Especially also because the applicants’ surnames all seem Romanian to me. You can find it here:
These are presumably appealable decisions, so in any case no role for us. But good to tune in if you (re)know them.
doc 182
Hi
As discussed, I hereby send you the details of the seven applicants who complained to us. The applicants’ complaints are almost the same. Requesters indicate that they made an application to DUO. They do not specify what exactly they applied for. Requesters complain about not receiving a decision on the application. Or applicants complain that a loan was stopped. I have provided a brief summary of the complaint for each applicant.
We would like to hear if these applicants also received a decision. Then we can determine how to proceed with the complaints.
For consultations, I am happy to be reached. You can find my contact information at the bottom of this email.
Thanks in advance!
doc 172
Bună
Chiar acum am discutat cu . am discutat deja pe scurt despre „ problema românească ”. Am înțeles că DUO lucrează la asta de ceva timp și că acești oameni vor primi o decizie (de respingere) în curând.
Pot primi de la dvs. informații concrete, în plus față de acestea? Apoi, colegii mei pot continua cu cazurile pe care le-am primit.
Cu stimă,
doc 160
Am găsit un articol online care chiar îmi amintește foarte mult de asta. Mai ales și pentru că numele de familie ale solicitanților mi se par toate românești. Îl puteți găsi aici:
Se presupune că sunt decizii cu drept de apel, deci în orice caz nu avem niciun rol. Dar e bine să le urmăriți dacă le (re)cunoașteți.
doc 182
Bună ziua
Așa cum am discutat, vă trimit detaliile celor șapte solicitanți care s-au plâns la noi. Plângerile solicitanților sunt aproape identice. Solicitanții indică faptul că au depus o cerere la DUO. Ei nu specifică ce anume au solicitat. Solicitanții se plâng că nu au primit o decizie cu privire la cerere. Sau solicitanții se plâng că un împrumut a fost oprit. Am furnizat un scurt rezumat al plângerii pentru fiecare solicitant.
Am dori să aflăm dacă și acești solicitanți au primit o decizie. Apoi putem stabili cum să procedăm cu plângerile.
Pentru consultări, sunt bucuros să fiu contactat. Veți găsi datele mele de contact în partea de jos a acestui e-mail.
Vă mulțumesc anticipat!
.
Legal Commentary and Analysis on Documents 172, 160, and 182 – The Biased Role of the Ombudsman in the Case of Romanian Students
Documents 172, 160, and 182 clearly show that the Ombudsman, an institution that should be impartial and protect citizens' rights against administrative abuses, instead acted as a strategic partner of DUO, covertly supporting discriminatory decisions and actively contributing to the reinforcement of a biased treatment against Romanian students.
Legal Commentary and Analysis on Document 172
In this email, a representative of the Ombudsman refers to the cases of Romanian students as a separate category, calling them "Roemenenzaken" ("the Romanian problem"). This wording suggests that the authority treats Romanian students as a distinct group, automatically subjected to negative decisions, which contradicts the principles of non-discrimination and impartiality.
Moreover, the tone of the message indicates that the Ombudsman already knows these cases will be rejected, even before the individual decisions are objectively reviewed. This clearly demonstrates a lack of intent to ensure a fair process.
Legal Violations:
🔸 Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – prohibits discrimination based on nationality.
🔸 Article 6 of the ECHR – the right to a fair trial is severely compromised when decisions are predetermined.
.
Legal Commentary and Analysis on Document 160
The Ombudsman was sending negative press articles about Romanians to DUO, reinforcing prejudices and allowing DUO to label them as criminals without evidence. Essentially, the Ombudsman acted as a press agency for DUO, rather than protecting the rights of the affected citizens.
Legal Commentary and Analysis on Document 182
This email demonstrates that the Ombudsman not only unconditionally accepts DUO’s justifications but also conditions the handling of student complaints based on DUO’s response.
🔹 The phrase "Then we can decide how to handle the complaints." (“Dan kunnen we bepalen hoe we de klachten verder behandelen.”) suggests that the Ombudsman does not act independently, but rather waits for a signal from DUO before deciding on a course of action.
🔹 Additionally, the Ombudsman shared the personal data of students who had filed complaints with DUO, constituting a serious violation of GDPR regulations.
Legal Violations:
🔸 Violation of the principle of institutional separationi – The Ombudsman must act as an oversight authority, not as an interested party.
🔸 Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – GDPR violation – due to the unauthorized transfer of personal data without a clear legal basis.
🔸 Violation of the right to an objective review of complaints – The Ombudsman coordinates its position with DUO instead of providing an impartial ruling.
🔸 Article 14 of the ECHR – Prohibition of discrimination, as Romanian students were treated differently compared to other international students.
.
Conclusion – The Ombudsman as an Instrument of Institutional Discrimination
Instead of acting as a guardian of Romanian students' rights, the Ombudsman took on an active role in supporting DUO's actions. Ethnic profiling, referring to students as a “problem”, and influencing administrative decisions based on biased press articles are clear elements of systemic discrimination.
These documents reveal that DUO was not the only issue—it also received active support from the Ombudsman, an institution that, instead of correcting abuses, legitimized them.
Violation of Impartiality and the Duty to Protect Citizens
The Ombudsman’s role is to protect citizens from state abuses, not to provide the state with "ammunition" against them.
This behavior can be seen as favoritism toward DUO and indirect support for a discriminatory administrative decision, violating both the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
If DUO relied on these biased press articles to make administrative decisions—such as denying financial aid to Romanian students—then this sets an extremely dangerous precedent: a state institution was influenced not by evidence, but by the media.
Press articles are not legal evidence! Instead of requesting official documents or analyzing the legality of DUO’s decisions, the Ombudsman reinforced baseless suspicions.
sursa: 6 _20220203 Memo Studentv_geanonimiseerd.pdf
Fraud charges are being prepared by the Enforcement & Inspection Department against the students involved. Based on experience in similar cases, this route is not estimated to be successful. It is questionable whether the Public Prosecutor’s Office will take up this case. Usually a report is not taken further until clearer evidence is provided.
Departamentul de Aplicare și Inspecție pregătește acuzații de fraudă împotriva studenților implicați. Pe baza experienței în cazuri similare, se estimează că această cale nu va avea succes. Este îndoielnic dacă procurorul se va ocupa de acest caz. De obicei, un raport nu este dus mai departe până când nu sunt furnizate dovezi mai clare.
sursa: 148 148 _RE Vraag rondom studiefinanciering_geanonimiseerd
Hi
Via … I come to you on the line. He advised us to ask you to look into this case about student loans.
The decision deadlines of these applications have all passed by now. There are no default notices yet. DUO now proposes to reject all these applications, given the suspicions (see the attached memo from DUO about this). However, we see legal and political risks in rejecting these applications based on these suspicions. After all, there is no hard evidence, making it questionable whether this will stand up in court. And given the sentiment surrounding the control out-of-resident scholarship, such a decision is also politically sensitive.
See attached also my e-mail exchange with … who I asked for advice earlier. … has together with … also put this on paper (see attachment).
Would you like to take a look at this? Would you like to schedule a meeting?
I would like to hear from you! Thanks in advance.
Salut
Via … Am venit la tine pe această cale. Ne-a sfătuit să te rugăm să te ocupi de acest caz privind împrumuturile pentru studenți.
Termenele de decizie ale acestor cereri au trecut toate până acum. Nu există încă notificări de neplată. DUO propune acum să respingă toate aceste cereri, având în vedere suspiciunile (a se vedea nota atașată de la DUO cu privire la acest lucru). Cu toate acestea, considerăm că există riscuri juridice și politice în respingerea acestor cereri pe baza acestor suspiciuni. La urma urmei, nu există dovezi concrete, ceea ce pune sub semnul întrebării dacă acest lucru va rezista în instanță. Și având în vedere sentimentul din jurul bursei de control pentru nerezidenți, o astfel de decizie este, de asemenea, sensibilă din punct de vedere politic.
A se vedea atașat și schimbul meu de e-mailuri cu … despre acest lucru, căruia i-am cerut sfatul mai devreme. … a împreună cu … de asemenea, a pus eea pe hârtie (a se vedea anexa la e-mailul atașat).
Doriți să aruncați o privire la aceasta? Ați prefera să programați o consultație?
Mi-ar plăcea să primesc vești de la dumneavoastră! Vă mulțumesc anticipat.
Legal Commentary and Analysis on Documents 6 and 148
Documents 6 and 148 provide a clear picture of the abusive manner in which DUO handled the applications of Romanian students, confirming that the decisions made had no real legal basis but were instead driven by assumptions and political interests.
🔹 DUO attempted to build a fraud case against Romanian students, but the Inspection and Enforcement Department (Handhaving & Inspectie) acknowledged that there was not enough evidence for the Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) to take on the case.
In other words, DUO knew from the start that it lacked sufficient evidence, yet it continued pressuring authorities to block Romanian students.
🔹 On March 25, 2024, in an internal email exchange, DUO admitted that its rejection decisions were based solely on suspicions rather than concrete evidence.
Clear Administrative Abuse, Systematic Discrimination, Indifference to the Rule of Law
sursa: 113 _10. Beslismemo wijze van toekennen of afwijzen studenten GCRS - voorgelegd Wille_geanonimiseerd.pdf
Factual context.
In November 2018, DUO received a notification for the first time . DUO itself does not have powers to conduct investigations and therefore in 2019 the Inspectorate SZW, FIOD, Tax Authority, IND and SVB and CSN (Swedish student finance) were approached to investigate this construction. There was a negative response to these requests.
There was further contact with the Labor Inspectorate and the Chamber of Commerce in 2021, but this also did not lead to further investigations.
Contextul faptic
În noiembrie 2018, DUO a primit o notificare pentru prima dată . DUO în sine nu are competențe pentru a efectua investigații, astfel încât, în 2019, Inspectoratul pentru afaceri sociale și ocuparea forței de muncă, FIOD, Administrația fiscală și vamală, IND și SVB și CSN (Finanțarea studenților suedezi) au fost abordate pentru a investiga această construcție. Aceste solicitări au primit un răspuns negativ.
În 2021, au existat contacte suplimentare cu Inspectoratul Muncii și Camera de Comerț, dar nici acestea nu au condus la investigații suplimentare.
Legal Commentary and Analysis on Document 113
This document confirms that since 2018, DUO has been trying to find a legal basis to reject the applications of Romanian students collaborating with GCRS, yet all competent authorities refused to investigate due to lack of evidence.
🔹 No dutch institution found any irregularities – Authorities such as Inspectie SZW, FIOD, Belastingdienst, IND, and SVB reviewed the situation and concluded that there were no grounds for an investigation, confirming the legality of GCRS’s activities.
🔹 DUO ignored official findings – Instead of closing the case, DUO continued searching for excuses to reject applications, without any clear legal basis.
🔹 Repeated pressure for investigations – In 2021, DUO approached Arbeidsinspectie and KvK, but they also refused to open an investigation, once again emphasizing the absence of any fraud.
This unjustified persistence raises a crucial question: If all oversight institutions confirmed that no fraud existed, on what legal basis did DUO decide to reject the applications?
.
These points prove that DUO deliberately orchestrated an administrative abuse against Romanian students, violating both national and European legislation
DUO’s decisions were not based on facts but on prejudices and a clear strategy to eliminate this group from the Dutch education system.
„Samenvattend-besluitvormend” – Without any legal basis DUO ultimately proposed the “final solution”, relying exclusively on a press article (doc. 24) and a political decision. This confirms that there was never any real legal basis to reject the applications of Romanian students—only an administrative desire to remove them from the system.
Not Entrepreneurs "in the EU" but Directly in the Netherlands – DUO falsely misrepresented the reality. The students have a Dutch KVK and BTW number, operate as freelancers in the Netherlands, and sell their services independently. Artificially linking them to a “Swedish company” was a deliberate strategy to create confusion and contest their legal status.
“Option 2 is Less Bad” – For Whom? – Rejecting the applications of students who legally qualify for social rights is a clear abuse. In what way is it “less bad” for a student to be arbitrarily left without financial support, without any legal justification? This logic is not only absurd but also deeply discriminatory.
"We Avoid a Future Mess" – What Are You Talking About?
DUO admitted that there was no legal basis for rejection, yet it insisted that a “future problem” had to be prevented. This is not a legal analysis but an administrative decision driven by bias.
The Dutch Ministry of Education Did NOT Approve This Decision – As clearly shown in documents 83 and 92, DUO presented the Dutch Ministry of Education with a fait accompli. In reality, the Minister was forced to accept “De eindoplossing voor het Roemeense probleem” (The Final Solution for the Romanian Problem) as implemented by DUO. This clearly shows that the decision was made internally by DUO, without any legal mandate or real political approval.
Decision Based on a Press Article – In document 24, DUO acknowledges that such a decision CANNOT be made based solely on a press article. Yet, that is exactly what happened. Furthermore, all Dutch and Swedish authorities consulted explicitly stated that THEY FOUND NO ILLEGAL ELEMENTS. Despite this, DUO continued fabricating arguments to justify its abuse.
We Respond Now, Not Next Tuesday at 12:00! – Our response is exactly what you yourselves wrote in Version 3:
"Het gaat om jonge mensen die de wil hebben om vooruit te komen en die ook talent hebben."
("These are young people who have the will to move forward and who also have talent.")
Yet, DUO attempted to destroy their chances through an abusive decision with no legal basis. Now, we fight for justice and to show all of Europe how the Dutch administration treated Romanian students, violating fundamental principles of law and fairness.
.
Administrative Execution Without Evidence – DUO Violated All Principles of the Rule of Law
Mafia-Style Administrative Execution – How DUO's Abuses Were Orchestrated in the Netherlands (2023-2025)
What does it take to administratively execute a vulnerable ethnic group without any evidence in a country that claims to uphold the rule of law?
The answer lies in the official declassified documents from the Netherlands, which you can find below. These documents demonstrate step by step how this administrative abuse against Romanian students was orchestrated and how institutions that should have been neutral, such as the Ombudsman, became complicit in this plan.
🔹 Documents 24 and 148, combined with the Parliamentary Inquiry of October 20, 2023, clearly reveal the blueprint for this abuse:
1️⃣ You need a fake news article, published on a Dutch website, ukrant.nl, because in 2023, media manipulation played a crucial role in shaping public opinion.
2️⃣ You need a politician in an election campaign, such as Pieter Omtzigt, who can use this fake news to build his image as an "anti-corruption fighter", without any real evidence.
3️⃣ You need a target group – preferably an ethnic and vulnerable, one, lacking political or media support. In this case, Romanian students were chosen.
4️⃣ You need a compliant Ombudsman, who, instead of defending the rights of Romanian students, assists DUO by supplying them with press articles that fuel prejudices against them.
🔹 What Happened Next?
🔸 An artificial scandal is created, where Romanians are portrayed as "a problem", and the “final solution” is demanded for them, according to DUO's internal documents.
🔸 The Ombudsman, instead of remaining neutral, sends negative press articles about Romanians directly to DUO, reinforcing suspicions against them without any legal basis.
🔸 The issue is exploited in Pieter Omtzigt's election campaign, while at the same time, the Netherlands votes against Romania’s accession to Schengen, citing concerns over the rule of law.
🔸 In reality, DUO’s internal documents reveal that officials admit they have no evidence against Romanian students. Not that they have little evidence—they have NO EVIDENCE at all!
🔸 Despite this, Romanian students are administratively executed, with no chance to defend themselves. DUO knows the decision won’t hold up in court, but they move forward anyway, betting on the fact that a lawsuit will take years.
Pieter Omtzigt, can you tell us how much you gained electorally during your campaign thanks to the Dutch media articles that, at that exact time, ran the headlines: "Fraud with DUO money by Romanian students"?
📢 RESIGNATION!
Dear Dutch citizens, is this the rule of law you want for the Netherlands?
sursa: https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/kamervragen/detail?id=2023Z17977&did=2023D43407
Written questions
The post ‘Romanian NGO scams DUO. Paid for nonexistent work’
Submitters
Directed at
R.H. Dijkgraaf, Minister of Education, Culture and Science
Submitter
Pieter Omtzigt, Member of Parliament
Întrebări scrise
Articolul ‘Un ONG românesc escrochează DUO. Plătite pentru lucrări inexistente’
Prezentatori
Adresat către
R.H. Dijkgraaf, ministrul educației, culturii și științei
Remitent
Pieter Omtzigt, deputat
🔹 The Netherlands – A Rule of Law State? Or Administrative Executions Without Evidence?
This situation does not only raise questions about how DUO operates but also about the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in the Netherlands.
🔹Don’t take our word for it? Read the declassified official documents yourself!
DUO’s internal documents clearly demonstrate how this issue was politicized and how baseless suspicions were used to destroy the lives of hundreds of Romanian students.
It is the duty of the press to report on this and show the world what "the rule of law" in the Netherlands really means. Because in 2024, in the Netherlands, mere suspicion is enough for an administrative conviction—whereas the Inquisition was more skeptical before declaring someone a witch.
sursa: 24 _RE roemeense 'journalisten'_geanonimiseerd.pdf
Hi
To stop grants we indeed need proof that something is wrong. If there are payment receipts I don’t think we can do it anyway if there is no hard evidence that something is wrong. I don’t really understand where this is coming from. What I understand is that it happens that there are no payment receipts and possibly more than normal. What I have discussed with … discussed is that we were going to talk more broadly about whether we should do something with that signal and how. A newspaper article is also a signal but I wonder what you can do with it.
Bună
Pentru a opri acordarea de finanțări, avem într-adevăr nevoie de dovezi că ceva nu este în regulă. Dacă există chitanțe de plată, nu cred că putem face asta oricum dacă nu există dovezi clare că ceva este greșit. Nu prea înțeleg de unde vine asta. Ceea ce înțeleg este că se întâmplă să nu existe chitanțe de plată și, eventual, mai multe decât în mod normal. Ceea ce am discutat cu … discutat este că urma să discutăm mai pe larg dacă ar trebui să facem ceva cu acel semnal și cum. Un articol de ziar este, de asemenea, un semnal, dar mă întreb ce se poate face cu el.
sursa: 148 148 _RE Vraag rondom studiefinanciering_geanonimiseerd
Hi
Via … I come to you on the line. He advised us to ask you to look into this case about student loans.
The decision deadlines of these applications have all passed by now. There are no default notices yet. DUO now proposes to reject all these applications, given the suspicions (see the attached memo from DUO about this). However, we see legal and political risks in rejecting these applications based on these suspicions. After all, there is no hard evidence, making it questionable whether this will stand up in court. And given the sentiment surrounding the control out-of-resident scholarship, such a decision is also politically sensitive.
See attached also my e-mail exchange with … who I asked for advice earlier. … has together with … also put this on paper (see attachment).
Would you like to take a look at this? Would you like to schedule a meeting?
I would like to hear from you! Thanks in advance.
Salut
Via … Am venit la tine pe această cale. Ne-a sfătuit să te rugăm să te ocupi de acest caz privind împrumuturile pentru studenți.
Termenele de decizie ale acestor cereri au trecut toate până acum. Nu există încă notificări de neplată. DUO propune acum să respingă toate aceste cereri, având în vedere suspiciunile (a se vedea nota atașată de la DUO cu privire la acest lucru). Cu toate acestea, considerăm că există riscuri juridice și politice în respingerea acestor cereri pe baza acestor suspiciuni. La urma urmei, nu există dovezi concrete, ceea ce pune sub semnul întrebării dacă acest lucru va rezista în instanță. Și având în vedere sentimentul din jurul bursei de control pentru nerezidenți, o astfel de decizie este, de asemenea, sensibilă din punct de vedere politic.
A se vedea atașat și schimbul meu de e-mailuri cu … despre acest lucru, căruia i-am cerut sfatul mai devreme. … a împreună cu … de asemenea, a pus eea pe hârtie (a se vedea anexa la e-mailul atașat).
Doriți să aruncați o privire la aceasta? Ați prefera să programați o consultație?
Mi-ar plăcea să primesc vești de la dumneavoastră! Vă mulțumesc anticipat.
.
Full Compliance with the Law by Students
Essential Evidence:
Commentary on Documents 57 and 58:
These documents raise a fundamental legal issue regarding the status of Romanian students working as freelancers and the criteria applied by DUO to reject their financing requests.
DUO acknowledges that Romanian students comply with the law but still forces the idea of fraud.
Document 57 refers to the jurisprudence of the Dutch Council of State (ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:2502), which establishes that a freelancer (ZZP - Zelfstandige Zonder Personeel) must engage in an economic activity that is not “marginal and secondary” to qualify for social rights and residence. This interpretation should be applied fairly and proportionally, yet the document provides no evidence that DUO conducted a detailed case-by-case analysis before rejecting the Romanian students' applications.
sursa: 57 _zzp en migrerend werknemerschap_geanonimiseerd.pdf
Doc 57
date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023
Hi
In our consultation yesterday, the question arose to what extent the hour criterion plays a role in ZZP. I found the case law below about that. I also came across some cases in the IND’s work instruction. I have attached that earlier analysis.
Herewith the case law on ZZP: ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:2502, Raad van State, 201704060/1/V3 (rechtspraak.nl)
The question of when a self-employed person can derive rights from that status has also been the subject of case law. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State weighs up this question: “In view of the equivalence of employees and self-employed persons in article 7 of the Residence Directive and the fact that self-employed persons must also be engaged in an economic activity, it is obvious that, for the application of the Residence Directive to self-employed persons, a connection should be sought with the same lower limit that the Court has formulated for employees. This means that [by analogy] the Secretary of State must assess, on the basis of working conditions as a whole, whether the economic activity of a self-employed person is not merely marginal and incidental.” In line with this, it is obvious that this would establish the right to social benefits in addition to the right of residence.
Doc 57
data: vineri, 27 oct 2023
Bună ziua
În cadrul consultării noastre de ieri, s-a pus întrebarea în ce măsură criteriul orei joacă un rol în ZZP. Am găsit jurisprudența de mai jos pe această temă. În plus, am găsit și câteva cazuri în instrucțiunea de lucru a IND. Am atașat această analiză anterioară.
Iată jurisprudența privind ZZP: ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:2502, Raad van State, 201704060/1/V3 (rechtspraak.nl)
Problema momentului în care o persoană care desfășoară o activitate independentă poate obține drepturi din acest statut a făcut, de asemenea, obiectul jurisprudenței. Divizia de contencios administrativ a Consiliului de Stat analizează această chestiune: „Având în vedere echivalența dintre salariați și persoanele care desfășoară activități independente în temeiul articolului 7 din Directiva privind șederea și faptul că persoanele care desfășoară activități independente trebuie, de asemenea, să fie angajate într-o activitate economică, este evident că, pentru aplicarea Directivei privind șederea persoanelor care desfășoară activități independente, ar trebui să se caute o legătură cu aceeași limită inferioară pe care Curtea a formulat-o pentru salariați. Aceasta înseamnă că [prin analogie] secretarul de stat trebuie să evalueze, pe baza condițiilor de muncă în ansamblu, dacă activitatea economică a unei persoane care desfășoară o activitate independentă nu este doar marginală și accesorie.” În conformitate cu aceasta, este evident că s-ar stabili astfel dreptul la prestații sociale pe lângă dreptul de ședere.
Document 58 introduces criteria regarding the independence of economic activity, based on Case C-268/99 (Jany and Others). According to this ruling, a person is considered a freelancer if:
1️⃣ They have no subordination relationship regarding the type of work performed, working conditions, and remuneration.
2️⃣ They work at their own risk.
3️⃣ They are paid directly and in full by their clients.
All students involved in the collaboration with GCRS met these criteria and were legally registered freelancers in the Netherlands. They had contracts, issued invoices, and carried out real journalistic activities. Moreover, their activity was verified and accepted by both Dutch and Swedish authorities, further confirming their legal status.
sursa: 58 _8. Is een zelfstandige migrerend werknemer_geanonimiseerd.pdf
Doc 58
1. Is a self-employed migrant worker?
Depends on the circumstances. A self-employed person is not a migrant worker if the activity is performed
– without any relationship of authority regarding the choice of this activity, working conditions and remuneration,
– under his own responsibility, and
– for remuneration paid wholly and directly to him. (C-268/99
– Jany and Others, para. 70).
1. Un lucrător independent este un lucrător migrant?
Depinde de circumstanțe. O persoană care desfășoară o activitate independentă nu este un lucrător migrant dacă activitatea este desfășurată
– fără niciun raport de autoritate în ceea ce privește alegerea acestei activități, condițiile de muncă și remunerarea,
– pe propria răspundere, și
– pentru o remunerație care îi este plătită integral și direct. (C-268/99
– Jany și alții, punctul 70).
❗ Major Issue:
🔸 There is NO evidence that DUO individually assessed each student’s situation based on these criteria.
🔸 There is NO mention of any investigation proving that the Romanian students' economic activity was “marginal and secondary.”
🔸 On the other hand, the declassified documents reveal that DUO knew it had no evidence, yet still decided to reject applications en masse based on “suspicions.”
💡 Conclusion:
By abusively and unjustifiably applying these criteria, DUO created a discriminatory mechanism against Romanian students, automatically excluding them from funding without an objective assessment. This constitutes a violation of the principle of proportionality and European law regarding the free movement of workers and equal treatment.
These documents clearly demonstrate that DUO acted without a solid legal basis and confirm that the decisions taken against Romanian students were both discriminatory and unlawful. Furthermore, they show a deliberate disregard for legal reality, despite the fact that the affected students fully complied with the applicable freelancer regulations.
.
GDPR Violations by DUO and the Ombudsman
Essential Evidence:
The documents below clearly demonstrate the systematic way in which DUO and the Ombudsman violated GDPR, unlawfully disseminating the personal data of Romanian students to other institutions without a legal basis.
DUO Ignored Its Own Compliance Department and Decided to Violate GDPR
The most shocking aspect is confirmed in the document dated 16.02.2022, where DUO openly acknowledges that it has NO legal right to share students' personal data with other institutions—yet decides to do it anyway!
What happens in this document?
🔸 DUO’s Compliance Department explicitly warned that sending students’ personal data to Arbeidsinspectie (the Dutch Labor Authority) violates GDPR regulations.
🔸 DUO attempted to gain support from other institutions, including FIOD (the Dutch Anti-Fraud Authority), but all of them refused to cooperate, stating that there was no legal basis for an investigation.
🔸 Despite this, DUO ignored the recommendation of its own legal department and unlawfully transmitted students' data.
🔸 Even worse, DUO asked the Ministry of Education to facilitate the illegal transfer of these data in order to continue investigations without any legal grounds.
.
Illegal Data Transmission to Inspectie SZW
An email sent by DUO to @inspectie (declassified document no. 2) contains students' personal data, even though, in the same document, @inspectie explicitly confirms that THERE IS NO CRIME.
This raises a fundamental question: If the competent authorities determined that no fraud had occurred, why did DUO continue to illegally transmit students' data to other institutions?
sursa: 2_RE Bedrijf in Zweden_geanonimiseerd.pdf
From: @lnspectieSZW.nl
Sent: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:18:42
To: @duo.nl
Good that you are sending an email.
However, the question is whether there is any prospect of a concrete criminal offense? In my opinion, not at the moment. After all, you haven’t detected any forged documents etc yet, so there’s no point in initiating criminal proceedings in that respect.
From: @duo.nl
Date: Thursday, February 07, 2019 2:39 PM
To: @InspectieSZW.nl
Don’t know if I’ve come to the right place, but maybe you know where I should go.
From: @lnspectieSZW.nl
Sent: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:18:42
To: @duo.nl
Good that you are sending an email.
However, the question is whether there is any prospect of a concrete criminal offense? In my opinion, not at the moment. After all, you haven’t detected any forged documents etc yet, so there’s no point in initiating criminal proceedings in that respect.
From: @duo.nl
Date: Thursday, February 07, 2019 2:39 PM
To: @InspectieSZW.nl
Don’t know if I’ve come to the right place, but maybe you know where I should go.
sursa: 6_20220203 Memo Studentv_geanonimiseerd.pdf
Proposal deviation opinion Compliancy
Date
16-2-2022
Advice Compliancy:
Compliancy has answered the following in the situation at hand: Looking at the legal possibilities, we from DUO do not see any possibility for the time being to pass on actual personal data of students suspected of fraud to the Labour Inspectorate.
DUO can only perform a paper check and does not have the possibilities to conduct further investigation itself and is dependent on other organizations. After having approached several organizations in vain (including the FIOD), we have found the Inspectorate SZW willing to investigate this case further in order to determine whether the payment of study financing is legitimate. However, this investigation is not possible without providing the personal data of the students involved. Enforcement and Inspection is therefore considering disregarding Compliancy’s advice.
Requested Decision and Proposal.
The Division of Enforcement and Inspection hereby makes the request to be able to deviate from the advice of Compliancy and do, for this investigation only, share personal data.
In addition, we call attention to the limited possibilities for carrying out inspection in appropriate cases. Not only for this part, but there are more cases where we have insufficient powers to prevent abuse and improper use. Where we do have very strong indications that this is the case. We hereby request that we enter into discussions with OCW again and explore the possibilities for expanding powers.
Propunere abatere aviz Conformitate
Data
16-2-2022
Aviz Compliancy:
Compliancy a răspuns următoarele în situația de față: Analizând posibilitățile legale, noi, cei de la DUO, nu vedem deocamdată posibilitatea de a transmite datele personale reale ale studenților suspectați de fraudă către Inspecția Muncii.
DUO poate efectua doar un control pe hârtie și nu are posibilitatea de a efectua el însuși investigații suplimentare, fiind dependent de alte organizații. După ce am contactat în zadar mai multe organizații (inclusiv FIOD), am găsit Inspectoratul SZW dispus să investigheze în continuare acest caz pentru a stabili dacă plata finanțării studiilor este legitimă. Cu toate acestea, această investigație nu este posibilă fără furnizarea datelor personale ale studenților implicați. Prin urmare, aplicarea legii și Inspectoratul iau în considerare posibilitatea de a nu ține seama de sfatul Compliancy.
Decizia solicitată și cererea
Prin prezenta, Departamentul de Aplicare și Inspecție face o cerere de a se abate de la sfatul Compliancy și de a face, numai pentru această investigație, schimbul de date cu caracter personal.
În plus, atragem atenția asupra domeniului de aplicare limitat pentru efectuarea de verificări în cazuri corespunzătoare. Nu numai pentru această parte, ci există mai multe cazuri în care avem puteri insuficiente pentru a combate abuzul și utilizarea necorespunzătoare. În cazul în care avem indicii foarte puternice că acesta este cazul. Solicităm, prin prezenta, să intrăm din nou în discuții cu OCW pe această temă și să explorăm posibilitățile de extindere a competențelor.
The Ombudsman – An Accomplice in GDPR Violations
In document no. 182, an email from the Ombudsman to DUO contains personal data of multiple students, confirming that this was not an isolated incident. Furthermore, these violations began as early as 2018, demonstrating a systemic and deliberate practice by Dutch institutions to treat Romanian students as suspects without any legal basis.
This raises a fundamental question: If the competent authorities determined that no fraud had occurred, why did DUO continue to illegally transmit students' data to other institutions?
This is not just an administrative oversight—it is a blatant and deliberate GDPR violation, showing a complete disregard for data protection and the fundamental rights of EU citizens.
sursa: 182 _Klachten over DUO bij de No_geanonimiseerd.pdf
De la: @nationaleombudsman.nl
Sent: Wed, 8 May 2024 17:27:09
To: @duo.nl
Hi
As discussed, I hereby send you the details of the seven applicants who complained to us. The applicants’ complaints are almost the same. Requesters indicate that they have made an application to DUO. They do not specify what exactly they applied for. Requesters complain about not receiving a decision on the application. Or applicants complain that a loan was stopped. I have provided a brief summary of the complaint for each applicant.
We would like to hear if these applicants also received a decision. Then we can determine how to proceed with the complaints.
For consultations, I am happy to be reached. You can find my contact information at the bottom of this email.
Thanks in advance!
De la: @nationaleombudsman.nl
Sent: Wed, 8 May 2024 17:27:09
To: @duo.nl
Bună ziua
Așa cum am discutat, prin prezenta vă trimit detaliile celor șapte solicitanți care s-au plâns la noi. Plângerile solicitanților sunt aproape aceleași. Solicitanții indică faptul că au depus o cerere la DUO. Ei nu precizează ce anume au solicitat. Solicitanții se plâng că nu au primit o decizie cu privire la cerere. Sau solicitanții se plâng că un împrumut a fost oprit. Am furnizat un scurt rezumat al plângerii pentru fiecare solicitant.
Am dori să aflăm dacă și acești solicitanți au primit o decizie. Apoi putem stabili cum să procedăm cu plângerile.
Pentru consultări, sunt bucuros să fiu contactat. Veți găsi datele mele de contact în partea de jos a acestui e-mail.
Vă mulțumesc anticipat!
📢 This situation proves that DUO not only violated GDPR but did so intentionally, ignoring the recommendations of its own legal experts!
Conclusion
This series of documents clearly shows that:
🔸 DUO illegally shared students’ personal data with other institutions without any legal basis.
🔸 The Ombudsman, instead of protecting students' rights, became an instrument for spreading unfounded accusations.
🔸 The Ministry of Education was pressured by DUO to facilitate these GDPR violations.
⚠️ This is not an isolated case. It is a serious administrative abuse that must be investigated at the European level. We call for the urgent intervention of the European Commission and the initiation of infringement proceedings against the Netherlands.
A question for Dutch authorities:
How is it possible that, in a country that claims to uphold the rule of law, an institution like DUO deliberately decided to violate GDPR—even against the recommendations of its own legal departments?
.
GDPR Negative Opinion Issued by the Ministry of Education
Essential Evidence:
Commentary and Legal Analysis of Document 7
This document reveals a serious reality about how DUO operated against Romanian students without a clear legal basis. Here are some key points emerging from its content:
sursa: 7_MT OVG 2022-02-23 1 - Besluitenlijst MT OVG 09-02-2022(versie 0.1)_geanonimiseerd
MT OVG 23-02-2022 – annex 1
Decisions, actions and stock agenda Management team OVG
Opening, agenda and decision list (Annex 1):
– Agenda is adopted unchanged and briefly previewed.
– Decision list is adopted unchanged.
Proposal deviating advice Compliancy (attachment 9a-c):
– The advice from compliancy is based on risks to the organization. There should be a managerial discussion about whether certain actions should be carried out.
– If there is no legal basis under the control, how will it go if the student will go to court.
– There are limits to what you are allowed as a DUO. It is not wise to start exchanging personal data with other organizations.
– However, it is possible to contact the Public Prosecutor’s Office to discuss the possibility of reporting fraud. This is the logical step if DUO itself no longer has the legal ability to investigate further.
– Before any administrative discussion takes place, this should be properly prepared. How do other organizations do this?
– From the MT OVG this file will not be closed. It should be clear what paths have already been followed and whether this has already been discussed with OCW, what is their position on this issue? What does …. need to prepare this?
MT OVG 23-02-2022 – anexa 1
Decizii, acțiuni și agenda stocurilor Echipa de gestionare OVG
Deschidere, ordinea de zi și lista deciziilor (anexa 1):
– Ordinea de zi a fost adoptată neschimbată și a fost prezentată pe scurt.
– Lista de decizii este adoptată fără modificări.
Propunere de deviere a avizului Conformitatea (anexa 9a-c):
– Consilierea din partea Conformității se bazează pe riscurile pentru organizație. Ar trebui să existe o discuție administrativă cu privire la oportunitatea efectuării anumitor acțiuni.
– Dacă nu există un temei juridic în cadrul auditului, cum va fi dacă studentul va merge în instanță.
– Există limite la ceea ce vi se permite ca DUO. Nu este înțelept să începeți să faceți schimb de date cu caracter personal cu alte organizații.
– Cu toate acestea, este posibil să contactați Ministerul Public pentru a discuta posibilitatea de a raporta o fraudă. Acesta este pasul logic în cazul în care DUO însuși nu mai are capacitatea legală de a investiga mai departe.
– Înainte de a avea loc orice discuție administrativă, aceasta trebuie pregătită corespunzător. Cum fac acest lucru alte organizații?
– Din partea MT OVG, acest dosar nu va fi închis. Ar trebui să fie clar ce căi au fost deja urmate și dacă acest lucru a fost deja discutat cu OCW, care este poziția lor cu privire la această problemă? De ce are nevoie …. are nevoie pentru a pregăti acest lucru?
1️⃣ Lack of Legal Basis for Investigations
The document explicitly acknowledges that there is no legal foundation for the investigations conducted against students. Moreover, it raises the question of what will happen if a student challenges these decisions in court. This proves that DUO acted arbitrarily, fully aware that it could not justify these measures before a judge.
2️⃣ Deliberate Violation of Personal Data Protection
The document confirms that clear legal limits exist regarding data sharing with other organizations. However, instead of respecting these regulations, DUO chose to seek alternative methods to justify its decisions despite lacking a legal basis.
3️⃣ Attempt to Force the Involvement of the Prosecutor’s Office (Openbaar Ministerie – OM)
Despite the lack of evidence, DUO considered involving the prosecutor’s office to push for a fraud investigation against students. In other words, if no legal grounds existed to sanction them, DUO attempted to fabricate a case by pressuring other institutions.
4️⃣ Refusal to Close the Case
Even in the absence of solid evidence, DUO’s leadership decided not to close the case and instead continued pressuring the Ministry of Education to find a way to block Romanian students from accessing financial support.
🔹 Conclusion:
This document unequivocally proves that DUO acted against the principles of the rule of law, making decisions based on suspicions, without evidence, and without adhering to the legal framework. Furthermore, the report reveals that there were already internal warnings stating that these measures were illegal and that there were major risks if these practices were challenged in court.
It is clear that this was not the enforcement of the law, but a premeditated administrative execution aimed at excluding Romanian students from the system.
Is this what the rule of law looks like in the Netherlands, Mr. Pieter Omtzigt? RESIGN!
.
DUO Knowingly Ignored the Ministry of Education’s GDPR Order
Essential Evidence:
Commentary and Legal Analysis of Documents 12-17
These documents clearly prove that DUO transmitted the personal data of at least 200 Romanian students to multiple authorities without their consent and without a solid legal basis. Moreover, internal discussions reveal an internal conflict, where some DUO officials recognized the gravity of the situation and even warned that this action could constitute a severe GDPR violation, yet the leadership chose to proceed anyway.
Officials acknowledged that they had no clear legal basis for sharing the data, yet the information had already been distributed to institutions such as FIOD, the Ministry of Education, and the Labor Inspectorate (SZW).
They were uncertain whether they should notify the affected students and delayed the decision, even though they knew that they were legally required to inform them. To this day, students have not been notified about this data breach.
The documents reveal that some officials were concerned that this situation strongly resembled the "Bulgarenfraude" scandal, in which Bulgarian nationals were collectively targeted for alleged social welfare fraud, leading to a major political and legal scandal in the Netherlands.
They admitted that automatically labeling Romanian students as fraudsters was dangerous, yet they continued to treat them as such and block their rights.
Internal correspondence clearly shows that internal warnings were issued, advising against sharing the data without a solid legal basis. However, DUO leadership ignored these recommendations and pushed for the exchange of information.
There is mention of a "verwerkersovereenkomst" (data processing agreement), yet there is no confirmation that this agreement was ever signed, proving that the data was transmitted illegally.
sursa: 12 _RE Gegevensverstrekking studenten uit Roemenië Datalek_geanonimiseerd.pdf
sursa: 13 _RE Gegevensverstrekking studenten uit Roemenië Datalek_geanonimiseerd.pdf
sursa: 14 _RE Gegevensuitwisseling_geanonimiseerd.pdf
sursa: 14 _RE Gegevensuitwisseling_geanonimiseerd.pdf
sursa: 14 _RE Gegevensuitwisseling_geanonimiseerd.pdf
sursa: 14 _RE Gegevensuitwisseling_geanonimiseerd.pdf
sursa: 14 _RE Gegevensuitwisseling_geanonimiseerd.pdf
sursa: 15 _FW Gegevensuitwisseling_geanonimiseerd.pdf
sursa: 16 _RE 20221012 memo verzoek om nader onderzoek te doen.docx_geanonimiseerd.pdf
sursa: 17 _RE gegevenslevering FIOD_geanonimiseerd.pdf
To fully understand the scale and collective losses caused by DUO and the Ombudsman, we present the following calculation:
1️⃣ Losses from blocked donations
🔸 Following the collective audit conducted by Skatteverket (Sweden) and Belastingdienst (Netherlands) at the GCRS headquarters in Sweden, authorities requested the exact number of monthly donors and established that there were 524 donors.
🔸 The updated donation amount per donor is €821, meaning that annually, the total donations amounted to €5,162,448.
2️⃣ Losses for freelance journalists due to the blocking of our operations amount to:
🔸 450 journalists x €770 x 24 months, totaling €8,316,000.
🔸(This figure includes collaborators from multiple countries, not just the Netherlands.)
3️⃣ Losses for students who could no longer access DUO funding are estimated at:
🔸 200 students (as identified by DUO, though we know the actual number is much higher) x €1,300 per month
🔸(excluding transport, health insurance, and other lost benefits) x 2 years,
Resulting in a total of €6,240,000.
These approximate losses form the basis for assessing the total damages, including the portion related to GDPR violations by both DUO and the Ombudsman.
To support these claims, please refer to DUO Document 6 (above), where it is explicitly stated that for 60 students, who were GCRS journalist collaborators, DUO spent € 1.2 million in 2022.
sursa: 6_20220203 Memo Studentv_geanonimiseerd.pdf
Proposal deviation advice Compliancy
date: 16.02.2022
Introduction
EU students who study in the Netherlands and work at least 56 hours per month as employees, freelancers or self-employed persons are entitled to study financing.
Situation outline
Since a few years, a number of students from Romania have been applying for study financing based on their entrepreneurship. These individuals register with the Chamber of Commerce as self-employed and have one client, a company based in Sweden. The work is of a journalistic nature: writing pieces or recording videos (for Studentv). The students indicate that they receive monthly cash payments from their client, who travels by train from Sweden to the Netherlands every month for this purpose. The company is linked to a Romanian site that advertises courses in Europe, including the Netherlands, as well as pre-financing in various countries: https://gcrs.ro/netherlands/ The translations of the site strongly suggest a creative method of qualifying for student loans without having to do much in return. It is indicated that something is being arranged only on paper and no actual labor seems to be involved. About 60 students have so far received study financing under this arrangement. An amount of EUR 1.2 million has been paid out to these individuals to date.
Propunere abatere aviz Conformitate
data: 16.02.2022
Introducere
Studenții din UE care studiază în Țările de Jos și lucrează cel puțin 56 de ore pe lună ca angajați, liber-profesioniști sau lucrători independenți au dreptul la finanțare pentru studii.
Descrierea situației
De câțiva ani, o serie de studenți din România solicită finanțare pentru studii pe baza spiritului lor antreprenorial. Aceste persoane se înregistrează la Camera de Comerț ca lucrători independenți și au un singur client, o societate cu sediul în Suedia. Munca este de natură jurnalistică: scrierea de articole sau înregistrarea de videoclipuri (pentru Studentv). Studenții spun că primesc lunar plăți în numerar de la clientul lor, care călătorește cu trenul din Suedia în Țările de Jos în fiecare lună pentru a face acest lucru. Compania este conectată la un site românesc care face reclamă la cursuri în Europa, inclusiv în Țările de Jos, precum și la prefinanțare în diverse țări: https://gcrs.ro/netherlands/. Traducerile site-ului sugerează cu tărie o metodă creativă de a beneficia de finanțare pentru studenți fără să fie nevoie să facă mare lucru pentru aceasta. Se indică faptul că se aranjează ceva doar pe hârtie și nu pare să fie implicată nicio muncă efectivă. Aproximativ 60 de studenți au primit până acum finanțare pentru studii în cadrul acestui aranjament. O sumă de 1,2 milioane EUR a fost plătită acestor persoane până în prezent.
.
Academic Arrogance and Administrative Manipulation
Essential Evidence:
Commentary and Legal Analysis of Discussions Between Professors and Deans – Document 69
These messages clearly show that Dutch universities were aware of GCRS’s activities and that, instead of objectively analyzing the situation, they contributed to creating a negative perception without any legal basis.
🔹 The Hypocrisy of Universities
If university representatives consider what we do to be “obscure” or “unclear”, perhaps they should turn their attention to their own financial practices.
University tuition fees are recorded in accounting as donations, not as payments for services. Why? Because if they were considered "fees", universities would be required to issue invoices and pay VAT.
🔸 In other words, this financing model is identical to ours, and if we are ‘obscure,’ then universities are just as much.
🔹 Practices That Could Be Interpreted as Problematic
Moreover, if a student pays their university tuition from personal funds and is later hired by the university, this means that the university is employing someone who has previously donated to the institution.
This raises serious concerns, as hiring someone who has made prior payments to the institution can create conflicts of interest.
🔸 Do you have the courage to ask FIOD and Inspectie SZW about this university practice?
🔸 If you are so convinced that what you are doing is legal, why don’t you request an official response and make it public?
🔹 What Do These Messages Reveal?
1️⃣ GCRS is referred to as a ‘phenomenon’ that must be investigated, despite no complaints or concrete evidence of illegality.
2️⃣ It is acknowledged that ‘legally, it seems well-structured,’ meaning there is no legal basis for accusations.
3️⃣ It is admitted that competent authorities in the Netherlands and Sweden—including Belastingdienst, Arbeidsinspectie, FIOD, and CSN—have already been contacted and found no legal issues.
4️⃣ There is speculation about ‘cash payments’ without any evidence, proving a deliberate attempt to construct a false negative image.
❗ Conclusion
If the universities and deans who initiated these discussions believe that our model is illegal, then they should analyze their own financial practices—because they are using the exact same model.
We therefore encourage these professors and deans to consult their accounting departments and resign for their lack of knowledge before making baseless accusations.
sursa: 69 _FW Zweeds bedrijfje voor Roemeense studenten_geanonimiseerd.pdf
Hello
Are you familiar with the “shadowy” company my colleague has come across? See her email (to colleagues around the country) below. We feel that this is not really in the works.
We are curious to know whether students who have a ‘contract’ with this club are indeed guaranteed NL student loans for the duration of their studies or whether they will be caught out by you when you check it.
Hi…
Last week, in response to … on a shadowy Swedish company, which arranges for Romanian students to get assignments as self-employed workers through them, thus fulfilling the requirements to apply for student loans. The student in question first had jobs at … ‘s and the like, but then found out about the existence of the small Swedish company, which at once made him work for the duration of whole … study of … minimum 56-hour working problem. According to … there are in … about … students “working” through this small company and are operating all over the country. Students must register with the Chamber of Commerce as journalists and are thus hired by the small company. Take a look at the website yourself (and let Google translate that for you ©): www.gcrs.ro
This is where they operate in the Netherlands: www.gcrs.ro
My question to you is, are you already familiar with this “internship that allows you to study with Western European money, not your parents’ money”. Then I think it would be good to put this on the next KBS agenda, how and where to raise this further. I think it will be pretty well tied up legally and that they have found a loophole here, where they then use (abuse?) it very widely (in the Netherlands and in other countries). I am very curious if it is known to DUO.
By the way, I did not discuss this further with the student in question. This came up in passing at the end of our (already overrun) conversation and only when I went to make the conversation report and took a good look at the documents (see attached contract) and website, some alarm bells went off.
Bună ziua
Sunteți familiarizați cu compania „ obscură ” pe care a întâlnit-o colega mea? Vedeți mai jos e-mailul ei (către colegii din întreaga țară). Considerăm că aceasta nu este chiar la înălțimea așteptărilor.
Suntem curioși să știm dacă studenților pe baza unui „contract” cu acest club li se garantează într-adevăr împrumuturi studențești NL pe durata studiilor, sau dacă aceștia vor cădea printre degete atunci când vor fi verificați de dumneavoastră.
Bună…
Săptămâna trecută, în urma … despre o firmă suedeză dubioasă, care aranjează ca studenții români să obțină prin intermediul lor misiuni ca lucrători independenți, îndeplinind astfel condițiile pentru a solicita credite de studii. Studentul în cauză a avut mai întâi joburi la … ‘s și altele asemenea, dar apoi a aflat de existența micii companii suedeze, care l-a pus imediat să lucreze pe durata întregii … studiu de … problema muncii minime de 56 de ore. Potrivit … există în … aproximativ … studenți care „lucrează” prin intermediul acestei mici companii și care funcționează în toată țara. Studenții trebuie să se înregistreze la Camera de Comerț ca jurnaliști și sunt astfel angajați de mica companie. Aruncați o privire pe site-ul web (și lăsați Google să traducă pentru dvs. ©): www.gcrs.ro
Acesta este locul unde operează în Olanda: www.gcrs.ro
Întrebarea mea pentru dumneavoastră este dacă sunteți deja familiarizați cu acest „stagiu care vă permite să studiați cu bani din Europa de Vest, nu cu banii părinților dumneavoastră”. Atunci cred că ar fi bine să punem acest lucru pe următoarea agendă KBS, cum și unde să ridicăm această problemă în continuare. Cred că va fi destul de bine legat din punct de vedere juridic și că au găsit o portiță în reglementările de aici, pe care apoi o folosesc (abuzează?) foarte mult (în Țările de Jos și în alte țări). Sunt foarte curios să știu dacă acest lucru este cunoscut de DUO.
Întâmplător, nu am discutat mai mult despre acest lucru cu studentul în cauză. Acest lucru a apărut în treacăt la sfârșitul interviului nostru (deja depășit) și abia când m-am dus să fac raportul interviului și m-am uitat bine pe documente (a se vedea contractul atașat) și pe site, s-au declanșat unele semnale de alarmă.
sursa: 69 _FW Zweeds bedrijfje voor Roemeense studenten_geanonimiseerd.pdf
Hi…
According to … You and … know this phenomenon and are also trying to do something about it. Do you have any info for me in brief whether you know it and what we can do and what not?
Hi …
Can you pick up this signal from the deans’ world and send it to … And indicate to me if you guys know about this?
Bună…
Conform … tu și … cunoașteți acest fenomen și de asemenea încercați să faceți ceva în legătură cu el. Aveți vreo informație pentru mine pe scurt dacă îl cunoașteți și ce putem face și ce nu?
Bună …
Puteți prelua acest semnal din lumea decanilor și să-l trimiteți la … și să-mi indicați dacă voi știți despre asta?
sursa: 69 _FW Zweeds bedrijfje voor Roemeense studenten_geanonimiseerd.pdf
Hi.
I am indeed familiar with this company, but can’t really get a finger on it. I’ve already contacted the Tax Office, the Labor Inspectorate, FIOD and the Swedish Student Fund, but there is no one who can do anything for us.
This is a Romanian company that recruits students in a number of European countries. These students get an employment contract and then have to write a report or make a movie (on e.g. Youtube). The company is based in Sweden and according to the students here in the Netherlands, the Romanian owner comes from Sweden to the Netherlands every month to pay them in cash…..
In the attached Word documents you will find translations of the site.
Bună …
Într-adevăr, cunosc această firmă, dar nu prea reușesc să pun mâna pe ea. Am contactat deja Fiscul, Inspecția Muncii, FIOD și Fondul Suedez de Studii, dar nu există nimeni care să poată face ceva pentru noi.
Compania în cauză este o companie românească care recrutează studenți în mai multe țări europene. Acești studenți primesc un contract de muncă și apoi trebuie să scrie un raport sau să realizeze un videoclip (pe Youtube, de exemplu). Compania are sediul în Suedia și, potrivit studenților de aici din Țările de Jos, proprietarul român vine din Suedia în Țările de Jos în fiecare lună pentru a-i plăti în numerar…..
Veți găsi traduceri ale site-ului în documentele Word atașate.
sursa: 69 _FW Zweeds bedrijfje voor Roemeense studenten_geanonimiseerd.pdf
Hi …
As you can see we know the company but can’t do much with it.
I don’t know if you have any tips?
Kind regards,
Hi …
După cum vedeți, cunoaștem compania dar nu prea putem face mare lucru cu ea.
Nu știu dacă aveți vreun sfat?
Cu stimă,