The rebuttal sent officially to the “24 hours” editors yesterday, is still not published. The rebuttal concerns erroneous information that discredits the Member of the European Parliament Bilyana Raeva.
In the May 26, 2009 issue, in the article “Our members of the European Parliament occupy the bottom position by their capacity”, the correspondent of the newspaper “24 hours” from Brussels Jovka Dimitrova makes an incorrect quotation of the “Open Europe” British Non-governmental Organization rank list.
As this publication presents in incorrect way not only Bilyana Raeva, but also our country and causes damages on the name of Bulgaria, we insist that the editorial staff should afford to its readers the following objective information about the real ranking of the EP members activities, and especially that of Bilyana Raeva.
The objective ranking of our EP members based on 20 criteria of assessment of their work in the European Parliament is accessible for every reader on the Internet site of the Organization (http://www.openeurope.org.uk/).
It is clearly indicated there, that Bilyana Raeva gathers 28 points as assessment of her work. She is ranking at the 218th position among the 785 members of EP. For a comparison, the member of EP, who gathers the largest number of points, is Carl Schlyter with 55 points, and the EP member with the smallest number of points has gathered 2 points only.
Bilyana Raeva is ranking at the second position among the 18 Bulgarian EP members. She is among the EP members distinguished with strict discipline, many initiatives like: approved 2 Millions Euros for small and medium enterprises pilot project; approved additional CO2 quotas for the Bulgarian business; VAT-fraud fights; contribution for the scientific researches mobility and for the presentation of Bulgaria in the European Parliament through its culture and history.
Why has the truth been saved? Is this an attempt to wash eyes by publishing in the next issue of the paper (28.05.2009) a more detailed explanatory article on the same topic, without mentioning the incorrectness of the former one?
Until now, there is no reaction from the paper.