Vatican EU Case

1 avenue du Président Robert SchumanCS 30403 F - 67001 Strasbourg Cedex

T. + 33 (0)3 88 17 23 13 F. + 33 (0)3 88 17 90 62

www.ombudsman.europa.eu eo@ombudsman.europa.eu

European Ombudsman

Directorate A Registry

Strasbourg, 30/10/2012 Acknowledgement of receipt

Dear Sir/Dear Madam,

I am writing to let you know that your complaint dated 22/10/2012 reached the Office of the European Ombudsman on 23/10/2012 and was assigned registration number 2117/2012/LP. It will be dealt with by Mr Lambros Papadias (tel: +33 (0)3.88.16.49.15).

Enclosed, please find an information note concerning the treatment of your complaint and the rules governing the protection of personal data which the Ombudsman applies when dealing with complaints.

Your complaint will first be examined to determine if it falls within the Institutionʹs mandate. If it does not, I shall inform you accordingly. If it does, the Ombudsman will write to you.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that complaints submitted to the Ombudsman do not affect time limits for appeals in any administrative or judicial proceedings (Article 2(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman).

Yours sincerely,

Peter Bonnor

Head of the Registry

Jonathan LEVYchambers@brimstoneandcompany.com

IN RE: VATICAN FINANCIAL AUTHORITY

Information note

Once your complaint has been registered, the Ombudsmanʹs services will examine if it is within the Institutionʹs mandate. If it is, the Ombudsman will decide if it meets the admissibility criteria set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Statute of the European Ombudsman. He will then decide whether there are sufficient grounds to justify opening an inquiry into your complaint. Under normal circumstances, you will be informed of the findings oncerning these matters within one month.

When the Ombudsman decides to open an inquiry, he sends the complaint to the EU institution, body, office or agency in question and asks for its opinion. If the Ombudsman decides that there are insufficient grounds to open an inquiry into a complaint, he may also send his decision to the institution concerned, with the complainantʹs name and contact details removed. He will not do this, however, if, within two weeks of receiving this acknowledgement of receipt, the complainant expressly objects to such a course of action.

Complaints to the Ombudsman (and any annexed documents) are normally dealt with publicly. This means that any member of the public may have access to the complaint and its annexes. If the Ombudsman opens an inquiry, the opinion of the institution concerned by the complaint, any observations on the opinion made by the complainant, as well as all other documents in the complaint file are, in principle, public documents, to which any member of the public may have access upon request.

However, a complainant has the right to request that his or her complaint be dealt with confidentially. Such a request can be made or withdrawn at any time. If confidentiality is requested, there is no public access to the complaint or to any other documents in the complaint file. However, even a confidential complaint is sent to the institution concerned if the Ombudsman opens an inquiry.

The European Ombudsman aims to be transparent and proactive in disseminating information about his work. Therefore, when he decides to open an inquiry into a complaint, whether confidential or not, he will publish, on a specific page of his website, a short description of the subject matter and the allegations and claims taken up for inquiry. This will be done without disclosing the identity of the complainant. The Ombudsmanʹs decisions, whether dealt with publicly or confidentially, will also be published on his website and may be referred to in his Annual Report in an anonymised form.

A complaint to the Ombudsman may contain personal data relating to the complainant or to a third party. The processing of personal data by the Ombudsman is governed by Regulation (EC) No 45/20011. Unless the complainant requests confidentiality, he or she is understood to consent, for the purposes of Article 5(d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, to the Ombudsmanʹs dealing publicly with any personal data which the complaint may contain.

1 Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, OJ 2001 L 8, p.1.

Complaint form

Complaint about maladministration

Complaint submitted on: 22 October 2012

European Ombudsman

First name: Dr. Jonathan

Surname: Levy (Solicitor, England)

On behalf of (if applicable):

Holocaust Victims and organizations in Sweden,

UK, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, and the United States

Address line 1: 37 Royal Pointe Dr.

Address line 2:

Town/City: Hilton Head

County/State/Province: South Carolina

Postcode: 29926

Country: United States

Tel.: +1 8438378413

Fax: +1 2023182406

E-mail address: chambers@brimstoneandcompany.com

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

complain?

European Commission

What is the decision or matter about which you complain? When did you become aware of it? Add annexes if necessary.

Prelude to Complaint of Maladministration by the European Commission

On July 21, 2010, as a solicitor (England) we wrote on behalf of our clients

including Swedish and UK citizens to the European Central Bank regarding

a complaint about the Vatican Bank also known as the Institute for Religious

of 5European Ombudsman»At your service - Complaint form

10/22/2012https://secure.ombudsman.europa.eu/atyourservice/secured/complaintform/...

Works pursuant to the Monetary Agreement between the European Union

and The Vatican City State – Attachment One.

On September 23, 2010, the European Central Bank referred this matter to the

European Commission – Attachment Two.

On October 20, 2010, we wrote to the EU Commissioner as a solicitor

(England) on behalf of our clients regarding the The Monetary Agreement

between the European Union and The Vatican City State – Attachment

Three.

On or About November 15, 2010, we received a partial response from the

European Commission that referred the money laundering matter to a

Vatican Authority due to be operable January 1, 2011 – Attachment Four.

On November 17, 2010, we sought clarification from the European

Commission Attachment Five.

On or about December 17, 2010, the European Commission clarified that it

may take legal action if the Vatican Authority did not comply with the

Monetary Agreement between the European Union and The Vatican City

State – Attachment Six.

On July 2, 2011, as solicitor (England) for multiple clients including EU

residents in the UK and Sweden, a complaint detailing money laundering

allegation under the Monetary Agreement between the European Union and

The Vatican City State was written to the Vatican Financial Authority –

Attachment Seven.

On September 24, 2011, a follow up letter was sent to the Vatican Financial

Authority about the Monetary Agreement between the European Union and

The Vatican City State Attachment Eight.

Maladministration by EU Commission

On November 28, 2011, a letter was written to the EU Commission regarding

the inaction and failure to communicate by the Vatican Authority and

requesting the EU Commission use its good offices and take appropriate

action under the Monetary Agreement between the European Union and The

Vatican City State – Attachment Nine

On December 8, 2011, the EU Commission responded by informing the

complainant that it was not obligated to do anything because Complaint or

his clients were not persons described under Directive 2005156/EC –

Attachment Ten.

On February 10, 2012, the EU Commission was informed that it had erred

and that the solicitorcomplainant was a person described under Directive

2005/60//EC Article 2(1)(3)(b) which specifies that independent legal

professionals in the exercise of their activities that are acting on behalf of and

for their client in any financial transaction are obliged to report money

laundering to the member state FIU which is the VAIF for transactions

within or involving entities of the Vatican City State Attachment Eleven.

On or about March 13, 2012, the EU Commission responded in part by

indicating that it still would not take action under Directive 2005/60/EC

because the Vatican Bank belonged to the Holy See and not the Vatican City

State and therefore was exempt from Directive 2005/60/EC Attachment

Twelve.

On May 28, 2012, solicitorcomplainant on behalf of his clients including EU

residents responded to the EU Commission with documentary evidencing

indicating the Vatican Bank was created under the laws of the Vatican City

State was a Vatican City State entity – Attachment Thirteen.

On September 21, 2012, the solicitorcomplainant on behalf of his client wrote

a follow up letter to the European Commission requesting that the EU

Commission admitted that the Vatican was subject to Directive 2005/60/EC

and if the Vatican Financial Authority did not act in good faith and therefore

the EU Commission could take action – Attachment 14.

When the Vatican Authority ignored communications from Complainant, the

EU Commission did not act in good faith.

First it erroneously claimed complainant was not a person described under

Directive 2005/60/EC and therefore his complaints about money laundering

could be ignored.

Second, when it was pointed out that the EU Commission’s determination

was in error, the EU Commission then raised a second objection that the

Vatican Bank was not a Vatican City State entity.

Third, when the complainant submitted evidence from Vatican City’s lawyer

and expert to the contrary, the EU Commission refused to correspond with

the Complainant further.

Name Size Content type

1.pdf 671955 application/pdf

Name Size Content type

What do you consider that the EU institution or body has done wrong?

The European Commission has behaved in an arbitrary and capricious

manner in its treatment of Holocaust survivors and organization and has

erred in favor of the Vatican City State.

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

First, the EU Commission should answer the May 28, 2012 correspondence

from Complainant and then assist Complainant in holding the Vatican City

State’s Vatican Authority and Vatican Bank to the terms of the Monetary

Agreement between the European Union and The Vatican City State which

incorporates the anti money laundering provisions of Directive 2005/60/EC

in regards to the complaint against the Vatican bank by the Holocaust

survivors and organizations.

Have you already contacted the EU institution or body concerned in order to obtain redress?

Yes (please specify)

Yes, see the attached Exhibits. The EU Commission when contacted with

material points of law and fact by the complainant simply refused to respond

on directly on several occassions.

If the complaint concerns work relationships with the EU institutions and bodies: have you used all the possibilities for internal administrative requests and complaints provided for in the Staff

Regulations? If so, have the time limits for replies by the institutions already expired?

Not applicable

Has the object of your complaint already been settled by a court or is it pending before a court?

There is no pending court action not court ruling on the matter of the the

Monetary Agreement between the European Union and The Vatican City

State and Holocaust victimsʹ claims.

Please select one of the following two options after having read the

information in the box below:

Please treat my complaint publicly

% o you agree tha t your compla in t may be pas s ed on to ano ther ins titu tion o r body & European or na tiona l' ( if the European Ombuds man

dec ides tha t he is not en titled to dea l ) ith it *

1( avenue du Pr + s iden t , obe rt - chuman

C- 304 03

/ - 0 1 001 - tras bourg Cede 2

3 . 4 33 & 0 ' 3 5 5 1 1 23 13

/ . 4 33 & 0 ' 3 5 5 1 1 6 0 0 2) ) ) .ombuds man.eu ropa .eu

BRIMSToNE & CO.ATTORNEYS & SOLICITORS

I629 K STREET N\iv SUITE gOOWASHINGTON DC 20006 USA

lEutFAx l-2O2'31&2&6CHAMBERS@BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COM

YVYYW.BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COM

July l, 2010

European Cenhal BankThe Goveming CouncilKaisershasse 296031 I Frankturt am MainGermany

Re: Vatican Money Laundering of Nazi Gold &Use of Con€entration Camp Victim Gold to Mint Vaticrn Euros

Dear President Trichet:

This is a communication to the European Cenhal Bank by Holocdust Survivo$represented by this firm. The Holocaust Survivors request an investigation ofthewell founded allegations of money laundering and retention of Second World Warera concentration camp loot by the Vatican Bank, a selfdesffibed organ ofthe The

Holy See located in Th€ Vatican City State. Additionally, the Holocaust Survivorsrequest an accounting ofconc€ntration camp and victim gold in the possession of

the Vatican Bank and/or present in the Vatican City State or controlled by the

Holy See that may have been used to mint Vatican Euro coins or to providefinancing for their minting.

The ECB has jurisdiction ov€r this matter pursuant to Article 8 of The MonetaryAgreement between the Ewopean {Jnion and The Vatican City State and moresplcifically at Art. 8(l)(b). The EU-Vatican Monetary Agr€ement Annex firther

incorporatis by reference Directive 2005/60/EC ofthe European Parliament and ofthe Council of26 October 2005 on the prevention ofthe use ofthe financialsystem for the purpose ofmoney laundering and terrorist financing' OJ L 309'25.11.2005, p.l5 36, and amended by Directive 2008/20lEC ofthe ErropeanParliament and ofthe Cormcil of l1 March 2008 on the prwention ofthe use of

the firancial system for the purpose ofmoney laundering and terrorist fnancing,as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission ' OJ L 76'lg3r0l8, p. 4@7. Therefore, we believe that these allegations fall under theauspices ofthe ECB or an EU organization designated by the ECB.

We represent Holocaust Survivors and organizations including Mileva Reljanovic'a citizen of Sweden, and 25 other individuals representing Holocaust Survivors

ATTORNEYS, SOIJCITOR!', BARRISTEF9 AND ADI'OCATES, PRIMARY LTCENSES

Wa9HINGToN' DC & NlGEFla

BR|MSTToNE & Co.ATTORNEYS & SOIJCITORS| 629 K STREET NW surrE 3OoWASHINGTON DC 2(X)O6 USA

T ELrl F ̂ x 1 -20.2'3 | f}'24o6CHAMBERS@BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COM

YVYVW.BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COM

from th€ United States. Serbia and ukraine and The Independent Council ofSerbian Roma, The JasenoYac Research Institute, The Republic of Serbian Krajina

in Exile, and three other organizations who were all plaintiffs in the lawsuitAlperin v. Vatican Bank.

In 1999, the Vatican Bank's then president, Angelo Caloi4 was contacted by

Holocaust Survivors conceming the 1998 United States State DepartmentEizenstaVslany Report entitled (lS. Concerns About the Fate ofthe 'yartimeustqshtz Treasury which concluded there was evidence pointing to Vaticaninvolvement in laundering concenhation camp loot. The Vatican Bank howeverdid not answer Holocaust survivors and litigation in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northem District of Califomia ensued' The Vatican Bank was

eventually found by the court to be an organ ofThe Holy See and thereforeimmune ftom lawsuit in the United States because there was no eiidence that the

Ustasha gold conholled by the Vatican Bank was still in the United States' This

finding was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals in San Francisco and

became final in March 2010.

The Vatican Bank never denied the charges ofmoney laundering or accounted for

the conc€ntration camp gold it was accused of receiving' Plaintiffs produced

volumes ofdeclassihed documents and the transcript ofthe four day deposition of

former US Army Counter Intelligence Special Agent, William Gowen, whoinvestigated the Ustasha Treasury in Rome h 1946-1947 araong other evidence'

N4r. Gowen, who resides in New York City, testified under oath that a l0 truck

convoy ofvaluables including concentration camp gold was received at the

Vatican Bank in 1946. The value ofthis loot was estimated to be worth $50million by US Treasury Agent Emerson Bigelow who also reportedcontemporaneously to his superiors in Washington about th€ incident'

Holocaust Suwivors are concerned about the following:

l. Gold Vatican Euro coins may contain dental and victim gold fromconcentration camp victims in former Yugoslavia.

2. Valuables from the Ustasha Treasury or the proceeds ofsame may have been

used by the Vatican City State though accounts at the Vatican Bank to pay for

minting of Vatican Ewo denominated coins.

ATIORNEYS. SOL!CrfORS, BARRISTERS AND AI'YOCATESI FRIMARY LICENgE:IS

I/VaSH|NGToN' DC & NIGERIA

BRIMSTONE & CO.ATTORNEYS & SOLICITORS

| 629 K SIREET Nw sulrE 3ooWASHINGTON DC 200()6 USA

TEL.IFAX l'2O2'31&2406CHAMBERS@BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COM

YVWW.BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COM

3. The Vatican Bank has refused to cooperate in any investigation oflaunderingthe Ustasha Treasury, refused to enter a denial to the allegations ofmoneylaundering and chose instead to invoke sovereign immunity in the United States

Courts.

The Vatican City State and the state owned or operated frnancial institutionstherein by entering into t!rc The Monetary Agreement between the EuroPeanUnion aid The l/;tican city State have specifically placed themselves under ECBjurisdiction and have waived their sovereign immunity in exchang€ for the right to

coin Euro cunency.

Holocaust Survivors request the ECB designate an investigatory committee or

agency to which Holocaust Survivors may submit thefu evidence and that the

Vatican Bank and Vatican City State be required to cooperate in the investigation'

Respecttu[ysubmined. a.$'#:::.at, r . \ \ =

( r^,S(.^-) -"-.J Zri;.t-LoxS\ vr\rP .,.,am,N

r. Jonathan LetTAttomey & Solicitor for Holocaust Survivors

ATToRNEYS. soucrToRs, EARRISTERE aND ADvocATEs' PRIMARY llcENsEsvvasHtNGToN. DC & NtGERtA

@C E N T R A I

Dear Dr. Levy,

Upon receipt ofyour letter dated 30 August 2010, I heve been informed that my letter ofreply to your

original letter dated I July 2010 was never sent due to an administrative mistake l d€eply apologise for

the inconvenience caused and attach my original reply.

Antonio Sdinz de Vicuf,a

Director Ceneral Legal Services

E U R O P E A N A A N K

E U R O S Y S T E M

Anronio sAtNz DE vtculilA

Dr. Jonathan LevyBrimstone & CoAttomeys & Solicitors1629 K Street NW Suite 300Washington DC 20006USA 23 SEPTEMBER20IO

Yours sincerely,

E U R O F E A

@N C E N T

E U R O S Y S T E I ' I

Anronio sAlNz DE vICUNA

Dr. Jonathan LevyBrimstone & CoAtlorneys & Solicitors1629 K Street NW Suite 300Washinglon DC 20006USA

Dear Dr. Levy,

Thank you for your leter dated I J(ty 2010 addressed to the EuropeaD Central Bank' Please note that

rhe Monetary Agreement betweeD the European Union (EU) and the Vatican City State ol ' I7 DeceDber

2009 (the "EU-Vatican Monelary Agreement") was entered into by the EU pursuant to Art icle 219(l) of

the Treaty on the Furctioning of European Union (TFEU) Under this provision the EU Courci l ' acting

o,r a recontntendrltioD liom the European cornmission. and after consulting the European central Bank

(ECB). deoides the arrangelnents for the negotiation and co|lclusion of monetary agreements with third

Stales. In the case ofthe EU-Vatican Monetary Agrecmelt, the position to be taken by the EU regarding

the reDegotiatiorr of this AgreemeDt was set oul in an EU Council Decision of 26 November 2009 '

Article 3 of this Decision clarifies that the negotiations with the vatican city state were required to be

conducted by the ltal ian Republic and the European CommissioD on behalfofthe EU, that the ECB was

required lo be fully associated with the negotiations, but that the ECB's agreement was req ired only on

those issues lal l ing within the ECB's f ields ofcompetence ConsisteDt with this mandate, Mr' Joaquin

Alrnunia. l.or.rner Member ofthe European commission responsible for Economic and Monetary Affairs,

sigDed the EU-Valican Monetary Agreement for the EU. The Eu-Vatican Monetary Agreement also

specifies that the EU is represented by the European Commissior and by the ltalian Republic'

Regarding the ECB's fields of competence under the Eu-Vatican Monetary Agreement' while the ECB

has an exclusive competence to aulhorise the issue of euro banknotes within the EU, the ECB'S

competences in the area oieuro coirls is more restricted ln accordance with Article 128(2) TFEU n is

the EU Member Sfates, which issue euro coins, subject to the approval by the ECB's Coverning Council

ofthe volume ofthe issuance. It is the EU Council, on a proposal from the European Commission' and

aga inon lya l i e rconsu l t i ng theECB 'wh ichadop tsmeasures toha rmon ise thedenomina t i onsand

lechnical specificatioDs of all coins intended for circulation to the exlent necessary to permit their

smooth circulation within the EU. This narrow competence ofthe EcB with respect to cornage matters

under EU law is directly reflected in the provisions ofthe Eu_Vatican Monetary Agreement, Article 6 of

c o u n c i l D c c i s i o n o f 2 6 N o v € m b e l 2 0 0 9 o n t h e p o s i t i o n t o b e l a k e n b } l h e E u r o p e a n C o m m u n i t y r c g a r d j n g $ erh. v'ii.an aitu sr're Official Journal of the l-lurooean Union. L 321,

which requires that the volume of euro coins issued by the Vatican City State will be added to the

volume ofcoins issued by Italy for the purposes ofthe ECB approval ofthe total volume ofthe issue by

that Member State in accordance with Article l2E(2) TFEU.

You also make reference in your lefter to Article 8(l) of the Eu_Vatican Monetary Agreement Under

this provision the Vatican City State undertakes to adopt all appropriate measures, through direct

transpositions or possibly equivalent actions, with a view to implementing the EU legal acts and rules

listed in the Annex to the Agreement, in the field of: (a) euro banknotes and coins; and (b) prevention of

money laundering, prevention of fraud and counterfeiting of cash and non-cash means of payment,

medals and tokens and statistical reporting requirements Article 8(3) further clarifies that the Annex

will be amended annually by the Commission. Th€ Comrnission's role in this particular respect

complements the Commission's general legislative role under the EU Treaties

Against this background, we suggest that you refer this matter to the cabinet of the Member of the

Commission responsible for Economic and Monetary Affairs for further consideration

Antonio Seinz de Vicufia

Director Ceneral Legal Servic€s

Yours sincerely,

I 629 K STREET NW SU]TE 8OOWASHINGTON DC 20006 USA

TELlFax l'2o2'3l a44r6INFO@BRIMSTONEANDGOMPANY.COMl.v!.vw.BRIMSTONE:ANDCOMPANY.COM

October 20, 2010

Commissioner Olli RehnEuropean CommissionDirectorate General for Economic and Financial AffairsB-1049 BrusselsBelgium

Fax: (+32)2 29 809 98

Via Fax and Mail

In re: Holocaust Victim Gold and the EuAy'atican Monetary Agreement

Dear Commissioner Rehn:

We represent Dr. Milan Bates of the United Kingdom who is legal successorin interest to Serbian Holocaust survivor Nadezda Bates and we alsorepresent Swedish citizen and Holocaust survivor, Mileva Reljanovic bom in1930. We further represent several Serbian organizations representingmembers wilh an interest in this issue: The Republik Srpska Krajina inExile, the Independent Council of Serbian Roma, and The JasenovacMemorial Center. Outside Europe, we represent Holocaust survivors andtheir heirs in the United States and Serbia.

We are writing to you at the direction of Mr. Antonio S6inz de Vicuia' theDirector General oflegal Services for the European Cental Bank in regardsto our initial request ofJuly 1, 2010 for an inquiry into Euro coinage policiesby the Vatican City State. Please see atlached correspondence and resultinglegal opinion by Mr. S6inz de Vicufia on behalfofthe European CentralBank herein incorporated by reference and attachment.

This request includes the Vatican's complete failure to account forHolocaust related assets in it possession as being inimical with the curent

ATTORNEYS. SOUCTTORS. BARRISTERS AND ADVOC./\TES' PRII,IARY LICEN5EWASHINGTON, DC

BRIMSTONE & CO.ATTORNETS & SOLICITORS

| 629 K STREET trlw sulrE 3oor,iVASHINGTON DC 20006 USA

lEu/Fax l -202"31&24OGINFO@BRIMSTONEANTrcOMPANY.COM\/VTVW.BRI M5TONEANDCOMPANY.COM

EU Vatican Monetary Agreement of 20 1 0 (20l0lc 28105). We specificallyinvoke Article 8 ofthe Agreement which states:

Article 8

I. The Vatican City State shall undertake to adopt all appropriate measures,through direct transpositions or possibly equivalent actiorts, with a view toimplementing the EIJ legal ac* and rules listed in the Annex to thisAgreement, in the field of:

(a) euro banknotes and coins,

ft) prevention ofmoney laundering, prevention offraud and counterfeitingofcash and non-cash means ofpayment, medals and tokens and statisticalr ep or t ing / e q uire me nt s.

This request for an investigation and inquiry deals with the unresolved issueof the "Ustasha Treasury" and the missing gold and other valuables fromformer Yugoslavia first documented by the 1998 United States StateDepartment Eizenstat/Slany Report entitled Concerns About the Fate oftheWartime tJstasha Treasury which concluded that there was evidencepointing to Vatican involvement in larmdering concentmtion camp gold andloot after the Second World War.

This gold bullion, silver, and other valuables are victim property looted fromSerbs, Roma, and Jews which has never been accor'rnted for by the Vaticandespite numerous demands including our own lawsuit in the United Statesagainst the Vatican Bank (Institute for Religious Works). Dr. Bates, Ms.Relijanovic and the other victims suffered losses of family property to theUstasha including gold, silver, banknotes andjewelry \thich was looted bythe Ustasha and eventually deposited at the Vatican in 1946 and has beenunaccounted for since.

For examole:

AIToRNEYs. SoLtcIfoRS. BARRISTER5 AND ADYoCATES' PRIMARY LlcENaEWASHINGTON' DC

t 629 K STREET NwsulrE 3ooWASHINGTON DC 200()6 USA

, lEL/Fax l-20a3le-24o6INFO@BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COMWYYW.BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COM

Nadezda Bates was bom in Bihac, Bosnia, Kingdom ofYugoslavia in 1923.Plaintiffs father, Janko Bates, was a wealthy Serb businessman in Bihac andowned an establishment named Kafana Beograd- The Bates family ownednumerous other properties tbrough out the region and had accumulated agreat deal of wealth including an opulently firmished home and jewelryincluding one dozen hand made bracelets of 18 carat gold with sapphires anddiamonds and three necklaces made in the same fashion with dark sapphires,twenty rings made of l8 carat gold, hundreds of gold ducats, and many itemsoflesser value. They also possessed a quantity ofcash and a large stock offood and drink used in their trade. On Jme 23, 1941 agents ofthe UstashaRegime entered into Bihac and arrested the Serb and Jewish inhabitants'Plaintiffwitnessed the well organized pillaging and plundering of the Batesfamily property and Jewish properties in the neighborhood by the UstashaRegime's agents. Teams of special soldiers with trucks conducted thelooting operation in a thorough manner. The Ustasha soldiers herded theSerbs and Jews into the changing rooms at tle Bihac sports grounds, wherethey were thoroughly searched relieved ofany concealed valuables' Plaintiffand her family was transported to Kmjeusa by the Ustasha where her fatherand brother were murdered by Ustasha armed forces under the command ofthe Ustasha Govemor of Bihac, Ljubomir Kvatemik'..

Dr. Milan Bates is a resident of the United Kingdom and is legal heir tothese claims on behalfofthe Bates family and demands an accounting oftheir share ofgold in the Ustasha Treasury estimated to worth 40 ounces andthe family jewelry worth in excess of$100,000.

Mileva Reljanovic (Vujcic) was bom in 1930 in Vojskova, Bosni4 KingdomofYugoslavia and crmently resides in Sweden. In 1942 the UstashaRegime's agents forcibly removed all Serbs from Vojskova in order to"colonize" the region. The village store and its contents owned by plaintiffsfamily was seized and the Serb residents ofthe town terrorized byrampaging Ustasha armed forces who killed and raped indiscriminatelyarnong the Serbs. The store and its contents were converted to cash by theUstasha Regime's Ministry ofColonization and the proceeds added to theUstasha Treasury. Plaintiff and her family memben were sent 1o Jasenovac

AITORNEYS, SOLICTTOR9, BARRISTERS AND AD.\'OCATE:S' PRIMARY LTCENSEwasHlNGToN. DC

BRTMSTToNE & Co.ATTORNEYS & SOLICITORS

I629 K STREET NW SUITE 3OOWASHINGTON DC 2()006 USA

TEL/ F Ax 1 "202'3 | e'24ooINFO@BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COMu'W'IIV.BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COM

concentration camp where her father and some ofher siblings died. Uponentering Jasenovac, the Ustasha Regime agents confiscated the jewelry thefamily had concealed on their persons . . .

This gold and other valuables are in Vatican custody and were looted by theIndependent State of Croatia between 194l-1945 as part ofthe Ustashagenoiidal campaign against Serbs, Jews, and Roma in which an estimated500,000 so called undesirables were liquidated' The gold was deposited atthe Vatican in 1946 according to contemporaneous documents authored byAllied investigators and buttressed by the swom testimony of former USSpecial Agent William Gowen who while stationed in Rome investigatedand interviewed the Ustasha involved in the transfer of lot to the Vatican in1946 and 1947.

This victim gold has been the subject ofa decade long lawsuit in the United

States 1999 to 2010 against the Vatican Bank (Institute for Religious Works)and which is still pending as to The Franciscan Order. The lawsuit howeverwas dismissed without prejudice in regards to the Vatican Banlq it wasdismissed not on the merits, but on grounds of lack of subject matterjurisdiction due to Vatican sovereign oryan immunity from legal process inihe United States. That judgment was appealed and is now final by order ofthe United States Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals as of March 2010.

In sum, we are requesting the Commission open an inquiry into allegationsofmoney laundering ofHolocaust victirn assets by financial organsassociated with or which are agencies ofthe Vatican City State and also dealwith the question whether Holocaust victim gold and property has been used

by the Vatican City State in the minting ofor general backing ofthe Vatican

City State gold, other precious metal commernorative Euros and the ordinaryEuro coinage regime. The allegation is well founded, based on fact, andquite serious since the Commission surely cannot tolerate the Euro issuingantities laundering concentration camp gold or being associated wit} Vatican

financial institutions that refuse reasonable requests by Holocaust victims to

AITORNEYS. SOLICITORS, BARRISTERS AND AD.I.OCATES' PRIMARY T.ICENSEVI/ASHTNGTON' DC

BRtMsroNE & Co.ATTORNEYS & SOLICITORS| 629 K srREEr Nw SulrE gooWAsHtNGToN OC 200()6 USA

TELlFax l-202-318'24()6INFO@BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COM}vWW.BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COM

account for their proPerty.

We stand ready to submit electronically a large volume of informationincluding testimony and documentation to support these allegations and tocooperate entirely. We also note that the Vatican Bank (Institute forReligious Works) is currently under investigation and subject to a freezingorder by Italian authorities for money laundering activity lending credulityto our allegations that Vatican City State financial practices do not meettheir obligation to the EU under applicable treaties nor comply with a FATFanti money laundering standards.

Despite being provided ample opportunity and forum, the Vatican hasrepeatedly refused to answer this allegation by Holocaust victims by citingsovereign immunity from inquiry instead. However, we assert tlroughthe Vatican Monetary Agreement with the EU, the time has finally anivedfor closure in this long unresolved matter ofHolocaust asset laundering bythe Vatican under the auspices ofthe European Commission and EuropeanCentral Bark.

Sincerely,

\rtuS^( z;:*!/ \ ' "'"'4j,,tn/ iJonathan Le\T\--l Solicitor for Dr. Milan Bates et al.

Mr. Antonio S6inz de Vicuff4 the Dircctor General of Legal Services for theEurooean Central Bank

ATTORNEYS, SOIJCITORS, BARRISTERS AND ADVOCATES' PFIMARY LICENSEWASHINGTON, DC

* * it

* * * ■¿r

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS Financial stability and monetary affairs Financial institutions and financial stability Head of Unit

Brussels, ECFIN/E3/BA (2010)

Subject: Holocaust Victim Gold and the EU/Vatican Monetary Agreement

Dear Mr. Levy,

Following your letter of October 20, 2010 and your request for the Commission to open an inquiry

against the Vatican City State concerning the money laundering of Holocaust victim assets and the

possible use of their gold in the minting of euro coins, the Commission examined carefully your claim.

The Monetary Agreement between the European Union (EU) and the Vatican City State, as you rightly

have noticed in your letter, obliges the Vatican City State to implement a set of EU legislation on

prevention of money laundering by the end of 2010. The Vatican authorities are currently in the

process of transposing this relevant legislation into its legal order, and I can assure you that the

Commission in its capacity carefully monitors this process.

According to the draft law received from the Vatican authorities, we can inform you that in line with

the EU laws requirements this draft foresees an establishment of a special authority, operational as of

January 1, 2011 for implementing the anti-money laundering measures, and with the right to convey

appropriate controls of the relevant institutions of both in the Vatican and the Holy See. This authority

will cooperate with the EU and with the relevant international bodies active in the fight against money

laundering.

As regards, your points on the coin issuance - the Commission Services contacted the Vatican

authorities which ensured us that:

BRIMSTONE & CO. Attorneys & SOLICITORS 1629 Κ Street NW Suite 300 Washington DC 20006 USA TEL/FAX 1 -202-318-2406

Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (32-2) 299 1111. Office: BU-1 0/034. Telephone: direct line (32-2) 296 97 85.

Ref. Ares(2010)792544 - 09/11/2010

(i) The silver euro collector coins are minted by an external contractor - the Insitututio Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato of the Italian Republic, and the latter purchases itself the silver needed for minting of sliver collector coins,

(ii) The gold collector coins are also minted by the Insitututio Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato of the Italian Republic. The raw material needed for minting it is purchased each time by the Vatican City State from specialised Swiss whole-selling institutions...

Yours sincerely,

amin Angel

I629 K STREET N\,VSU|TE 3OO\,VASHINGTON DC 20006 USA

-feL/Fax l'2oz31&24OGINFO@tsRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY'COMl/vYvl/v.BRTMSTONEANDgOMPANY.COM

November 17, 2010

Euronean CommissionDireitorate General for Economic and Financial AffairsMr. Benjamin AngelB-1049 BrusselsBelgium

Holocaust Victim Gold and the EU/Vatican Monetary Agreement

Dear Mr. Angel:

I am writing in response to your recent communication regarding Holocaust

Victim Gol-d and the EU/Vatican Monetary Agreement' Thank you for the

clarification that the gold and silver content ofvatican Euros is claimed to

be ftee of tainted Nazi victim gold.

As to the larger matter ofHolocaust victim gold and money laundering of

same by Vatican financial institutions, we seek clarification ofthe EU

Vatican Authority to be established in 201 I to combat active money

laundering.

l. Will our complaint about Valicar laundering, retention, and failure to

account for World War II era victim assets be addressed?

2. What is the composition of this Authority?

3. Will the Authority's rulings be considered to be within the fiamework of

EU general law and thus subject to judicial review.

Thank you again for your consideration and responsiveness in this important

matter.

ATTORNEYS, SOLICTIORS, BARRigTERg AND ADI.OCATES' PRIMARY UCENSE

WasHlNGToN, DC

I629 K STREET NW SUITE 3OOWA3HINGTON DC 20006 USA

T ELrl F Ax 1.202.3 | &24OeINFO@BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COMWIV\lt|. BRIMSTONEANDCOMPANY.COM

Dr. Jonathan Levy, PhDSolicitor for Dr. Milan Bates et al.

Mr. Antonio S6inz de Vicufia, the Director General ofLegal Services for theEuopean central Bank

aTToRNEYs, SoLIclToRs, BAFRIsTERS AND ADvocATEa' PRIMARY ucENgEwaaHlNGToN' Dc

Sincere

B R I M S T O N E & C O .

JONATHAN LEVYATTORNEY & SOLICITOR

| 629 K STREEY N\lv SUrrE 3( '0WASHINGTON DC 2()006 USA

T ELIF ax | -202-9 | a-24oe

htly 2,2011

Autorita di Informazione Finanziaria (AIF)Cardinal Attilio Nicora, PresidentPalazzo San CarloRomeVATICAN CITY

Ustasha Victim Gold and the EU/Vatican Monetary Agreement

Your Eminence:

We have previously corresponded about this matter in detail with theEuropean Commission and European Central Bank. We were then referredto the nascent AIF by the European Commission Directorate General forEconomic and Financial Affair on January 5, 2011. We have waited severalmonths for the AIF to become fully active and staffed under its enablingstatutes before contacting you about a matter involving certain accounts atthe IOR (Istituto per le Opere di Religione) tlrat have been used to launderand retain World War II era victim assets frorn former Yugoslavi4 the socalled Ustasha Treasury. Our clients include Holocaust survivors worldwideand organizations in Serbia and the United States. Vestiges ofthe assets,including moveable and immoveable property or profits there from are stillon deposit at the IOR.

This request for an investigation and inquiry deals with the unresolved issueofthb "Ustasha Treasury" and the missing gold and other valuables fromformer Yugoslavia first documented by the 1998 United States StateDeparbnent Eizenstat/Slany Report entitled Concerns About the Fate oftheWartime Ustasha Treasury which concluded tbat there was evidencepointing to Vatican involvement in laundering concentration camp gold andloot after the Second World War.

This gold bullion, silver, and other valuables are victim property looted fromSerbs, Roma, and Jews by the unrecognized Croatian Ustasha regime whichhas never been accounted for by the Vatican despite numerous demandsincluding our own lawsuit in the United States against tle Vatican Bank(Institute for Religious Works). The victims we represent suffered losses offamily property to the Usasha including gold, silver, banknotes andjewelrywhich was looted by the Ustasha and eventually deposited at the Holy See'sVatican Bank in 1944-1946 and have been unaccounted for since.

For example:

Nadezda Bates was bom in Bihac, Bosnia, Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1923Plaintiffs father, Janko Bat€s, was a wealthy Serb businessman in Bihac andowned an establishment named Kafana Beograd. The Bates farnily omednumerous other properties through out the region and had accumulated agreat deal of wealth including an opulently funished home and jewelry

including one dozen hand made bracelets of 18 carat gold with sapphires anddiamonds and three necklaces made in the same fashion with dark sapphires,twenty rings made of l8 carat gold, hmdreds of gold ducats, and many itemsoflesser value. They also possessed a quantity ofcash and a large stock offood and drink used in their trade. On June 23, 1941 agents ofthe UstashaRegime entered into Bihac and arrested the Serb and Jewish inhabitants.Plaintiff witnessed the well organized pillaging and plundering of the Batesfamily property and Jewish properties in the neighborhood by the UstashaRegime's agents. Teams of special soldiers with trucks conducted thelooting operation in a thorough manner. The Ustasha soldiers herded theSerbs and Jews into the changing rooms at the Bihac sports grounds, wherethey were thoroughly searched relieved ofany concealed valuables. Plaintiffand her family was transported to Kmjeusa by the Ustasha where her fatherand brother were murdered by Ustasha armed forces under the command ofthe Ustasha Governor of Bihac, Ljubomir Kvatemik.

Dr. Milan Bates is a r€sident of the United Kingdom and is legalrepr6sentative to these claims on behalf of the Bates family and demands anaccounting oftheir share of gold in the Ustasha Treasury estimated to worth40 ounces and tle family jewelry worth in excess of$100,000.

Mileva Reljanovic (Vujcic) was born in 1930 in Vojskova, Bosnia, Kingdomof Yugoslavia and currently resides in Sweden. In 1942 the UstashaRegime's agents forcibty removed all Serbs ftom Vojskova in order to

"colonize" the region. The village store and its contents owtred by plaintifFsfamily was seized and the Serb residents of the town terrorized byrampaging Ustasha armed forces who killed and raped indiscriminatelyamong the Serbs. The store and its contents were converted to cash by theUstasha Regime's Ministry ofColonization and the proceeds added to theUstasha Treasury. Plaintiff and her family members were sent to Jasenovacconcentration camp where her father and some ofher siblings died. Uponentering Jasenovac, the Ustasha Regime agents confiscated the jewelry thefamily had concealed on their persons. Ms. Reljanovic, a Swedish citizenalso request s an accountrng.

The organizations, the Independent Cormcil of Serbian Roma, RepublikSrpska Krajina in Exile, The Jasenovac Memorial Center and JasenovacResearch Institute also request an accounting on behalfoftheir memberssome of who were victims or legal heirs of victims of the Ustasha.

This gold and other raluables are in Vatican Bank custody and were lootedby the Independent State of Croatia between 1941-1945 as part oftheUstasha genocidal campaign against Serbs, Jews, and Roma in which anestimated 500,000 so called undesirables, mainly Serbs and Rom4 wereliquidated. The gold and looted assets was deposited at tle Vatican Bank in1946 according to contemporaneous documents authored by Alliedinvestigators and buttressed by the sworn testimony of former US SpecialAgent William Gowen who while stationed in Rome investigated andinterviewed the Ustasha involved in the tr-ansfer of lot to the Vatican in 1946and 1947 .

I must also add the losses of our Roma clients are extremely welldocumented through the efforts ofthe Independent Council of SerbianRoma. Roma assets were often in gold and silver coin and were confiscatedby the Ustasha and became part ofthe Ustasha Treasury.

This victim gold has been the subject ofa decade long lawsuit in the UnitedStates 1999 to 2010 against the Vatican Bank (Institute for Religious Works)and which is still pending as to The Franciscan Order.' The lawsuit howeverwas dismissed without prejudice in regards to the IOR and OFM, it was

I Alperin v. Vaticln BqnL and OFM, United States District Court for the Northem Districtof Califomia. D.C. No. CV-99-0494I-MMC. Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge,Presidine.

dismissed not on the merits, but on grounds of lack of subject matterjurisdiction due to Vatican sovereign organ immunity from legal process inthe United States. Thatjudgrnent was appealed and is now final by order ofthe United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as of March 2011. We arenow free to bring this matter directly to the Vatican as has been suggestedrepeatedly in the past by the IOR's attomey, Mr. Lena. We have not done sopreviously because the AII was not yet in existence and no appropriateauthority existed over the IOR or its account holders. As the appeal is nowterminated, we bring this mafter to you in a timely fashion.

In surn, we are requesting the Comrnission open an inquiry and accountinginto these well founded allegations ofrnoney laundering and retention ofHolocaust victim assets by financial organs associated with or which areagencies ofthe Vatican City State.

We stand ready to submit electronically or by post a large volume ofinformation including testimony and documentation to support theseallegations and to cooperate entirely. The legal representatives of the OFMand IOR are also in possession ofvolumes oflegal docurnents from the USCourts and their own internal investigations which have not been released.

Despite being provided ample opportunity and forum, the OFM and IOR hasrepeatedly refused to answer this allegation by Holocaust victims by citingsovereign and jurisdictional immunity from inquiry instead. However, weassert through the Vatican Monetary Agreernent with the EU, the time hasfinally anived for closure in this long unresolved matter ofHolocaust assetlaundering by the Vatican under the auspices ofthe European Commissionand European Cenhal Bank.

IOR accounts and/or their successor accounts that are or were associatedwith these names are identified as being under suspicion ofretainingHolocaust assets:

Ante BonifacicOrder of Friars MinorCroatian AlmanacCroatian Catholic Messenger NewspaperCroatian Custody ofthe Holy Family ofChicagoCroatian Historical SocietyCroatian Liberation Movement

Croatian Publishing House CroatiaDanica Newspaper (of Chicago)Fr. Krunoslav DraganovicFr. Dominik Mandic, OFMFranciscan Printery (of Chicago)Srecko PsenicnikThe Croatian Confraternity of San GirolamoThe Roman Catholic Diocese of Zageb

Thank you for your cooperation in this endeavor and with all due respect werequest that members ofthe FIA who are associated with IOR or OFMrecuse themselves from this matter owing to the appearance ofa conflict ofinterest given the prohacted litigation that preceded this request.

Finally, we will request an acknowledgement by fax +l -202-318-2406 oremail: jonlevy@hargray.com regarding your reoeipt ofthis letter.

Sincerely,

r. Jonathan Lely,Attomey and Solicitor

JONATHAN LEYY

ATTORNEY & SOLICITOR' 629 K STREET N\/v SUITE 3OO

WASHINGToN DC 20006 USAT EL/ F ax 1 -2O2-3 | A-24Od

September 24, 2011

Autoritd di Informazione Finanziaria (AIF)Cardinal Attilio Nicora, PresidentPalazzo San CarloRomeVATICAN CITY

Ustasha Victim Gold and the EU,^/atican Monetary Agreement

Yow Eminence:

As attomey for survivors ofthe Ustasha genocide in former Yugoslavia, Ihave an unshakeable belief that justice will be done. We began this effort foran accounting ofthe Ustasha Treasury in 1999 from the Vatican Bank andFranciscan Order. Therefore it was with some hope, we greeted theformation ofthe Autoritd di Informazione Finanziaria (AIF) and our referralto it by the European Commission, Directorate General for Economic andFinancial Affairs, Financial Institutions Unit.

Again we waited patiently until July 2, 201 I for the Autorita diInformazione Finanziaria to become fully staffed and functional' Wetendered our communication. See Attachment and Certificate of mailing. OnSeptember 2, 201 1 we attempted to fax your ofiice a reminder but we havereceived no response,

The matter of the Ustasha Treasury is not a solely historical claim; we areconvinced that evidence or even remnants ofthese ftmds still exist atinstitutions under the AIF's supervision. For example, in the past few years,significant accusations involving looted diamonds formerly in the custody ofthe Diocese ofZagreb have appeared, the so called "Zagorac affair."

We are aware that since July the AIF and Vatican Bank (IOR) may havesevered their overlapping staffing. This was one of our requests since ourcommunication deals in part with the IOR. However we do not understandwhy we have received no response.

Our witnesses are in their 80's and 90's. We have recently located a directwitness to money laundering ofthe Ustasha Treasury by individualsaffiliated with the IOR and OFM in post Second World War Italy. He is inhis 90's and resides in Canada.

I am sure the lack ofresponse by the AIF is an oversight. However if wehave not heard anlthing within 30 days ofreceipt ofthis communication, wewill not stand idly by while out witnesses and survivors pass on.

Finally, we still request an acknowledgement by fax +1 -202-318-2406 oremail : jonlevy@hargray.com regarding your receipt of this letter.

. Jonathan Levy, PhDAttomey and Solicitor

ril ll]ililrililril l il||illlllillfl lllilLJ 545 871 730 US

t{tffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffil|ilUSPS@ PRIORITY MAIL INTERNATIONAL FLAT RATE ENVELOPE

FEd: JoMTHAN H LEIryBRIMSTONE&CO37 ROYAL POIN-TE DRHTLTON HEAo SC 29926-1166

To: AUTORITA Dl INFORMAZIONE FINANZIARIAPAI-AZZO SAN CARLOOO120 CITTA DEL VAT]CANOVATICAN CITY

customs Declaration CN 22

Gin tr Comm6rcralsampe EDo@rent5 E Other tr

DetailEd d€scriDtion of contentg:

HS trrrl numbor d countY ol o.lglt:

rodddc$€t6o iv6nonh€ ' tem e tu iv l ra t lFepadcu laEg lver r th isdecarahon€€@rec landhdt thb .ndo6no l@nt6 ln5ryd6n0oou3an ic€o ' f i l c i *pErDrGdoyEgEEroror by post|l or cuslomr Egu|al ons

S€nd.tujgnltuE: JONATHAN H L€VY

Ps Fom 2e7sPM Do.or duprrc€r€ $h rm sfiout usPs.ppEv.l Th.l!!q!!qlMl!l!!!!!

lnstructions1. Priofily Mailffat raia gnv€lopo isGqulr€dwhsn shiPPing at

2. V6it that all iniomstion populaled in lh8 fonn ls cotrecl.

3. Comm€rcial sond€rs: rknown snterth€ 6 dign HS taifinumber, whlch musl b€ bas€d on ths Hsrmonizedcommodity Doscipiion snd Codlng syslom developod bv thsWodd Customs Oqanization. 'Counlry of O.igin" mearc thacountry whe€ the goods odginat€d - e.9., we€ ptoducsd /manubclu€d or assombl€d.

4. Placo your labalso it does nol wlap arcund th€ €d9€ or

5. Adhere your label to lhe package. A ser_adhesiv€ label lsrecomm€ndod. lft.psorglue is us€d, DO NOTTAPE OVER&ARCODE. Bs sure edg€s sr€ s€cure.

6. To mail: hl€malional packag6s may NOTbe placsd in aUSPS c.llBction box. Please prssent to a Ela associate inU.S. Postal Sowice €lail outl€|, hand to your l€tisr carnor atthe time of maildelivery orschedulo aerierpickup.

7. ltem must bo mailed on lhs mailing date selsdod

L The shipplng lab€l B uniqu€ and can be us€d only onc€.

Online Label RecordCu3tom! Barcode l{umber:

LJ 5,15 871 730 US

Inlsrmlronal Po3talor ti3,26Toral: lra.26

FOMJ JOMTHAN H LEVYBRIMSTONE&CO3TROYALPOINT€ORfllLToN HEAD SC 2!026-1 106

ro: AUTORITA Dl INFORMAZIONE FINANZIARIAPALAZZO SAN CARIOOO1 20 CITTA DEL VATICANOVATICAN CITY

UNIfEDSIATESPOSTAL SERV|CE .

Thank you for shipping with the United States Postal Sevice!

, '"' ,1".i:Xl$*'5il" "oov\fAsHrNGroN DC 2OooG usATEvFax + t -202-314-2406

cxluaens@anrusroNEANDcoM PANY.coM

November 28, 201 I

' European CommissionDirectorate General for Economic and Financial AffairsFinancial Stability & Monetary AffairsFinancial Institutions & Financial StabiliwHead of UnitMr. Benjamin AngelB-1049 BrusselsBelgiumF ax: ft32) 2 29 809 98

Via Fax, Email and Mail

In re: (Vatican) Autoriti di Informaz ione Finanziaria (AIF) & Eu/VaticarMonnetaryAgreement and European Commission Letter ofJanuary 5, 2011(ref. no 93 l9)

Dear Mr. Algel:

On January 5, 201 I following a series of letters with the EU Commission andthe Euopean Central Bank, you refened our allegations of post World WarTwo era money laundering of assets from former Yugoslavia by cunent andpast account holders at the Istituto per le Opere di Religione (IOR) to theAutoritA di Informazione Finanziaria (AIF) which was just formed at thebeginning of201l

The AIF has refused to acknowledge or respond to our correspondence datedI]uly 2,2011 and September 24, 201 1. We also attempted to fax the AIF onSeptember 2, 201 1. Based on my prior dealings with Vatican agencies andorgans, I can only conclude this is yet again deliberate nonfeasance by the AIFto avoid taking jurisdiction. I note some AIF officers are forner or culrentofficials ofthe IOR. This behavior is completely inappropriate for aa agencywhose purports to carry out harmonization and anti money laundering andanti tenorism provisions ofEU, COE and Eurozone fiscal policies'

lod',,"r,.r", "

The behavior ofthe AIF however is 10004 consistent with the IOR's 10 yearlegal battle in the United States federal courts in the case Alperin v. VaticanBank and OFM,lJnited States District Court for the Northem District ofCalifomia. D.C. No. CV-99-04941-MMC. Maxine M. Chesney, DistrictJudge, Presiding. The IOR spared no expense or legal argument in ultimatelypreventing a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over it and itsconfederate, the Franciscaa Order. This bolsters the argument that the IORand AIF should be held accountable under anti money laundering regimes.The Vatican state by engaging in intemational barking through the IOR,purporting to carry out EU anti money laundering and anti terrorismdirectives t}rough the AIF and as a member ofthe Eurozone, must bynecessity follow the applicable laws and may not hold itself above the law.

As you may know fiom our previous correspondence to the EU Commission,our firm represents over a thousand individuals of Serb, Jewish, and Romadescent worldwide with the majority resident in Serbia. We representindividuals resident in the European Union including Sweden and the UnitedKingdom. We also represent several organization including the JasenovacMemorial Society, Independent Council of Serbian Roma, and the RepublikofSrpska Krajina in Exile all ofBelgrade, Serbia and the American non profitcorporation, Jasenovac Research Institute. Our clients are well into theirsecond decade of legal struggle and many of the original victims haveunfortunately passed on without closure.

We appreciate that the European Commission has indicated that within theframework of EU law it does have authority to initiate legal or other actionsagainst the Vatican.

Therefore we unequivocally request the European Commission toinvestigate the alleged institutional shortcomings ofthe AIF in generaland if necessary hold the AIF accountable for its willful failure toaddress our legitimate money laundering allegations

In the attached exhibits we have identified several IOR accounts that evennow may still hold remnants or profits derived from the Ustasha treasury. TheIOR and at least one ofthe account holders, the Franciscan Order, havecategorically refused to cooperate. The AIF refuses to respond. Any furtherattempts by us to bring this matter before AIF appear to be futile absent acogent explanation from AIF about their handling of our correspondence.

Therefore, on behalfofour clients we allege the following:

l. The structure and personnel ofthe AIF prevent it from functioning as anindependent authority;

2. The AIF as a practice does not answer correspondence the Vatican deemsobjectionable;

3. The AIF's nonfeasance in our oarticular matter is an indication ofinstitutional failure to comply with applicable EU Directives.

We ask that the European Commission take appropriate action includingusing its good offices to resolve this matter.

It is our position that financial institutions must behave in an ethical and legalmanner. While we do not dispute the Vatican state answers solely to its Godin matters offaith, in matters of finance the laws of Man apply.

Respectfu lly submitted,

Attomey and Solicitor

PS Please note we are also copying this to Moneyval at the Council ofEuropewhich we understand is currently evaluating the fitness ofthe AIF.

Copy to:

Direitorate General ofHuman Rights and Legal AffairsDirectorate of MonitoringCouncil of Europe67075 Sfasbourg CEDEX, FRANCEemail : dghl.monelval@coe.int

JONATHAN LE\ 'YATTORNEY & SOLICI fOFI

' 629 K STREET Nl /v SUITE 3OO

WASHTNGTON DC 2C)006 USA

TEL/F^x 1 -202-3 | a'24O4

Jtrly 2,2011

Autoritd di Informazione Finanziaria (AIF)Cardinal Attilio Nicora, PresidentPalazzo San CarloRomeVATICAN CITY

Your Eminence:

We have previously conesponded about this matter in detail with dleELrropean Commission and European Cenhal Bank- We were then referredto thi nascent AtF by the European Commission Directorate General for

Econornic and Financial Affair on January 5, 20 | | We have waited severalrnonths for the AIF to becorne fully active and staffed under its enablingstatutes before contacting you about a matter involvitrg cefiain accounts atthe IOR (lstituto per le Opere di Religione) that have been rsed to launder

and retain World War II era victim assets fiom former Yugoslavia, the so

called Ustasha Treasury. Our clients include Holocaust survivors worldwide

and organizations in Serbia and the United States. Vestiges ofthe assets,including moveable and immoveable property or profits there fiom are still

on deposit at lhe IOR.

This request for an investigation and inquiry deals with the unresolved issue

ofthe "iJstasha Treasury" and the missing gold and other valuables iiom

former Yugoslavia first documented by the 1998 United States StateDepartmeni Eizenstat/Slany Report entitled Concerns About the Fate ofthe

Wirtime Ustasha Treasury which concluded that there was evidencepointing to Vatican involvement in laundering concentration camp gold and

loot after the Second World War.

This gold bullion, silver, and other valuables are victim property looted from

Serbs, Roma, and Jews by the unrecognized Croatian Ustasha regime whichhas never been accounted for by the Vatican despite numerous demandsincluding our own lawsuit in the United States against the Vatican Bank(hrstitute for Religious Works). The victims we represent suffered losses offamily property to the Ustasha including gold, silver, banknotes and jewelry

which was looted by the Ustasha and eventually deposited at the Holy See'sVatican Bank in 1944-1946 and have been unaccounted for since

For example:

Nadezda Bates was bom in Bihac, Bosnia, Kingdom ofYugoslavia in 1923.Plaintiffs father, Janko Bates, was a wealthy Serb businessman in Bihac and

owned an establishment named Kafana Beograd The Bates family ownednumerous other properties through out the region and had accumulated agreat deal of wealth including an opulently furnished home andjewelryrncluding one dozen hand made bracelets of l8 caral gold with sapphires and

diamonds and three necklaces made in the sarne fashion with dark sapphires,twenty rings rnade of l8 carat gold, hundreds of gold drtcats' and many itemsoflesser value. They also possessed a quantity ofcash and a large stock of

food and drink used in their trade. On June 23, l94l agents ofthe UstashaRegime entered into Bihac and arrested the Serb and Jewish inhabitantsPlaintiff witnessed the well organized pillaging and plundering of the Batesfarnily property and Jewish properties in the neighborhood by the UstashaRegime's agents. Teams ofspecial soldiers with tnrcks conducted thelooting operation in a thorough manner. The Ustasha soldiers herded the

Serbs and Jews into the changing rooms at the Bihac sports grounds, where

they were thoroughly searched relieved of any concealed valuables. Plaintiff

and her family was fansported to l(mjeusa by the Ustasha wlrere her father

and brother were murdered by Ustasha armed forces under the command of

the Ustasha Govemor of Bihac, Ljubomir Kvatemik.

Dr. Milan Bates is a resident ofthe United Kingdom and is legalrepresentative to these claims on belralfofthe Bates family and demands an

accounting oftheir share of gold in the Ustasha Treasury estimated to wortlr40 ounces and the family jewelry worth in excess of$100,000

Mileva Reljanovic (Vujcic) was born in 1930 in Vojskova, Bosni4 Kingdom

ofYugoslavia and currently resides in Sweden. In 1942 the UstashaRegime's agents forcibly removed all Serbs from Vojskova in order to

"colonize" the region. The village store and its contents owned by plaintifPsfamily was seized and the Serb residents of the town terrorized byrampaging Ustasha armed forces who killed and raped indiscriminatelyamong the Serbs. The store and its contents rtere converted to cash by theUstasha Regime's Ministry ofColonization and the proceeds added to theUstasha Treasury. Plaintiffand her family members were sent to Jasenovacconcentration camp where her father and some ofher siblings died. Uponentering Jasenovac, the Ustasha Regime agents confiscated the jewelry thefarnily had concealed on their persons. Ms. Reljanovic, a Swedish citizenalso request s an accountlng.

Tlre organizations, the Independent Corrncil ofSerbian Roma, RepublikSrpska Krajina in Exile, The Jasenovac Memorial Center and JasenovacResearch Institute also req[est an accounting on behalfoftlreir memberssorne ofwho were victims or legal heirs ofvictims ofthe Ustasha.

This gold and other valuables are in Vatican Bank custody and were looted

by the Independent State ofCroatia between l94l -1945 as part oftheUstasha genocidal campaign against Serbs, Jews, and Rorna in which anestimated 500,000 so called undesirables, mainly Serbs and Roma, wereliquidated.

'fhe gold and looted assets was deposited at the Vatican Bank in1946 according to contemporaneous documents authored by Alliedinvestigators and butlressed by the sworn testimony of former US SpecialAgent William Gowen who while slationed in Rome investigated andinierviewed the Ustasha involved in the hansfer of lot to the Vatican in 1946and '1947 .

I must also add the losses ofour Roma clients are extremely welldocumented tlrrough the efforts ofthe Independent Council of SerbianRoma. Roma assets were often in gold and silver coin and were confiscatedby the Ustasha and became part ofthe Ustasha Treasury.

This victim gold has been the subject ofa decade long lawsuit in the United

States 1999 io 2010 against the Vatican Bank (hrstitute for Religious Works)

and which is still pending as to The Franciscan Order.' The lawsuit however

was dismissed without prejudice in regards to the IOR and OFM, it was

' Alperin t. Valican Rank atd Ot&4,United States District Court for the Northem District

oftalifornia. D.C. No. Cv-99-04941-MMC. Maxine M Chesney, District Judge,Presidine.

dismissed not on the merits, but on grounds oflack of subject matterjurisdiction due to Vatican sovereign organ immunity fiom legal process Inthe United States. That judgment was appealed and is now final by order oftlre United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as of March 201 I. We arenow fiee to bring this matter directly to the Vatican as has b€en suggestedrepeatedly in the past by the IOR's attorney, Mr. Lena. We have not done sopreviously because the AIF was not yet in existence and no appropriateauthority existed over the IOR or its account holders. As dre appeal is nowterminated, we bring this matter to you in a timely fashion.

In sum, we are requesting the Commission open an inquiry and accountinginto these well founded allegations of money laundering and retention ofHolocaust victim assets by financial organs associated with or which areagencies ofthe Vatican City Stat€.

We stand ready to submit electronically or by post a large volume ofinfonnation including testimony and documentation to sttpport theseallegations and to cooperate entirely. The legal representatives ofthe OFMand IOR are also in possession of volumes of legal documents fiom the tJSCourts and tlreir own intemal investigations which have not been released

Despite being provided arnple opportunity and forum, the OFM and IOR hasrepeatedly refused to answer this allegation by Holocaust victims by citingsovereign and jurisdictional immunity ftom inquiry instead. However, weassert through the Vatican Monetary Agrsement with the EU, the time hasfinally arrived fbr closure in this long unresolved matter of Holocaust assetlaundering by the Valican under the auspices ofthe European Commtsstonand European Central Bank.

IOR accounts and/or their successor accounts that are or were associatedwith these names are identified as being under suspicion ofretainingHolocaust assets:

Ante BonifacicOrder of Friars MinorCroatian AlmanacCroatian Catholic Messenger NewspaperCroatian Custody ofthe Holy Family ofChicagoCroatian Historical SocietyCroatian Liberation Movement

Croatian Publishing House CroatiaDanica Newspaper (of Chicago)Fr. Krunoslav DraganovicFr. Dominik Mandic, OFMFranciscan Printery (of Chicago)Srecko PsenicnikThe Croatian Conffaternity of San GirolamoTlre Roman Catholic Diocese of Zagreb

Thank you for your cooperation in this endeavor and with all due respect werequest that members ofthe FIA who are associated with IOR or OFMrecuse themselves llom tlris matter owing to the appearance ofa conflict ofinterest given the protracted litigation that preceded this request.

Finalfy, we wiff request an acknowledgement by fax +l-202'318-2406 or

email: jonlevy@hargray.com regarding your receipt ofthis letter.

Sincerely,

Ib:lFnT

'lENlr l=

{xheE$S:'d

- ; ;B

$-:rjl

B R I M E T O N E & C O .

JONATHAN LEVYATAORNEY & SOLICITOR

I629 K STREET N\/v SUITE 3OO

WA5HINGTON DC 20006 USA

TEL/F^X | -202'3 | A'2406

September 24, 201I

Autoritd di lnformzzione Finanziaria (AlF)Cardinal Attilio Nicora, PresidentPalazzo San CarloRomeVATICAN CITY

Your Eminence:

As attomey for survivors ofthe Ustasha genocide in former Yugoslavia' I

have an unshakeable belief that j ustice will be done' We began this effort for

an accounting ofthe Ustasha Treasury in 1999 from the Vatican Bank and

Franciscan Oider. Therefore it was with some hope, we greeted the

formation ofthe Autoriti di Informazione Finanziaria (AIF) and our refenal

to it by the European Commission, Directorate General for Economic and

Financial Affairs, Financial Institutions Unit.

Again we waited patiently until July2,20ll for the Autorile di. .-.Iriformazione Finanziaria to become fully staffed and functional' We

tendered our communication. See Attachment and Certificate of mailing' On

September 2, 201 I we attempted to ffi your office a reminder but we have

received no response.

The matter ofthe Ustasha Treasury is not a solely historical claim; we are

convinced that evidence or even remnants ofthese funds still exist at

institutions under the AIF's supervision. For example, in the past few years'

significant accusations involving looted diamonds formerly in the custody of

thi Diocese ofZagreb have appeared, the so called "Zagorac affair'"

We are aware tlat since July the AIF and Vatican Bank (IOR) may havesevered their overlapping staffing' This was one of our requests since ourcommunication deals in part with the IOR. However we do not understandwhy we have received no resPonse.

Our witnesses are in their 80's and 90's. We have recently located a directwitness to money laundering ofthe Ustasha Treasury by individualsaffiliated with the IOR and OFM in post Second World War Italy. He is inhis 90's and resides in Canada.

I am sure the lack ofresponse by the AIF is an oversight. However if we

have not heard anything within 30 days ofreceipt ofthis communication, we

will not stand idly by while out witnesses and survivors pass on.

Finally, we still request an acknowledgement by fax +l -202-318-2406 or

email: jonlevy@hargray.com regarding your receipt oftbis letter'

Sincerely,

. JonathanLevy, PhDSolicitor

ril il]ililtilril|| | llffillilllllllil$;fl"*"' |flffiffi#mlffiilLJ 5,15 871 730 USUSPS@PRI--ORITYMAILINTERNATIONAL|I ITAIEIIYE!9EE

FON: JOMTHAN H LEVYaRlMsroNEaco.37 ROYAL POIITTE DRHTLTON HEAo 5C 29926-11€6

Customs Declaratlon CN 22

6in E Codmorcralsrhpro EDodments E olhor tr

OO12O CITIA DET VATICANOVATICAN CITY

r. nutonfl ot tlronulzloNE F NANZIARIADetalled de3cription of contenE:

HS t rltl nunbor tnd counrry olorlgln:

fl.llho ot0co DrL s|.nDr rh€ unde6'oh6d who$ ndme sf,d oddters dte glveF on $o o4 @nltv lhal th' t6n|4b€ gl@n h inls . .dJ.i,;;;6;d;iffiih;l rr''s ,tenioi:ii not-ontatn env oang.tod on'ch or arrcros Dohrbrrsd Dv tooBBuono. bY Doslalot 4llomt ie9llgtlonr

sondor'. llgn.ruo: JoNATTiAN H LEVY

's .o- *'aour Do nor dur{'c.r. ih6 rom nr^our rJsE]!ry!-----I!-I4!3slgr!l4l:9gtglr

lnstructions1. Prio.ity Mailfl8l r6to 6nvolop6ls Equircd wh€n shlpPrng al

2. V€rlt tiat all lnrotmatlon popubl€d in lh€ tom ls comcl

3 Commsrcial sendols: lf known 6ntff ths 6 dlgll HS larltlnlmbdr, whlch nlslba bas€d on the Harmonizodcommodlty osscrlption and codlng svsl€m dov€lopod bv lhsWorld Cusloms otganlzalion. "counlry oforigln" mstm lnecounlry whe€ thsgoods otlginal€d ' e g, we€ ptodu€d /manulaclulad ot esssmbrod

4. Ptacs your label so it doss not wrap atound lha sdgo ol

5 Adhsrs vour lsbeltohe package A s€llsdh€swa labellsrecomman'OeO. ll tapa orsluo rs used DO NOT rAPE OVERBARCODE. A€ su€ edgos€r€ s€cure

6 To mailr Int€mational packag$ m.vNOIb€ plac€d n.USPS collsction box. Pl6as€ present to a retail associale i.U.S. Posi.l &wice .etall oullal. hand to vour l€ter carEr etth6llms ofmaildelivery or schedlls a cariar pickuP

7.lt€m must b€ mailed on lns mailing dale sel€ded

L Th6snipplng lab€l bunique and can be used onlv ond

Online Label RecordCu3toms Barcodo Number:

LJ 545 871 730 US

htom.tl6nerporl.g. ll3-26Tolrl 113.26

FOM: JONATHAN H L€VYBRrrisToNE & co37 ROYAI POINTE DRHILTON HEAO SC 2092€_1146

T6: AUTORITA OI INFORIJIAZIONE FINANZIARIAPALAZZO SAN CARLOOO120 CITTA DEL VATICANOVATICAN CITY

##ffi. Thank you for shipping with the lJnited states Postal seNice!

u . s:^lgsrAG€*r.''o','r&i?,itt 3c

,$h1,1.

Fs Fom 38'17 AP'll2oo7

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIREC'TORATE GENERALECONOMIC AND FIMNCIAL AFFAIRSFinandal stablllty End monetary aflai|sFhanclal Instltutlom .nd flnanclal 3tlblllty

DG ECFIN

09 11 rntn**,1gQ5L1q

Brussels,ECFIN/E3IBA (2010)

SgUijg!: Holocaust Victim Gold and th€ Eu/Vaticar Motrotrry Agreement

Dear Mr. Levy,

Following your letter of October 20, 2010 and your request for the Commission to open an inquiryagainst the Vatican City State conceming the money laundering of Holocaust victim assets and thepossible use oftheir gold in the minting ofeuro coins, the Commission examined carefully your claim.

The Monetary Agrcement between the European Union (EU) and the Vatican City State, as you rightlyhave noticed in your letter, obliges the Vatican City State to implement a set of EU legislation onprevention of money laundering by the end of 2010. The Vatican authorities are curently in theprocess of tansposing this relevant legislation into its legal order, and I can assue you that theCommission in its capacity carefully monitors this plocess.

According to the draft law received ftom the Vatican autho ties, we can inform you that in line withthe EU laws requirem€nts this draft foresees an establishment of a special autholity, operational as ofJanuary 1, 2011 for implementing the anti-money launderi[g measues, and with the right to conveyapprop ate controls ofthe relevant institutions ofboth in the Vatican and the Holy See. This authoritywill cooperate with the EU and with the relevant intemational bodies active in the fight against moneylaundering.

As regards, your points on the coin issuance - the Cornmission Services contacted the Vaticanauthorities which ensured us that:

BRIMSTONE & CO.Aftorneys & SOLICITORS1629 K Street NW Suite 300Washington DC 20006 USAT EL/ F AX 1 -202-3 1 8-2406

Commission eurcpesnn€, B-1049 Bluxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brusset- Betgium. Tet6phon6i (32-2) ?9911 11.Ofiice: BU-1 0/034 Terephone: direcl line (32 2) 296 97 E5.

(i) The silver euro collector coins are miutsd by an extemal contactor - thc IDsitututio Poligrafiao GZecca dello Stato ofthe ftalian Republic, and the latter purchases itself the silver needed for mintingof sliver collector coirs,

(ii) The gold collector coins are also miul€d by the lositututio Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato of th€Italian Repubtic. The raw mat€rial needed for minting it is purchased each tine by the Vatican CityState ftom sDcaialised Swiss whole-sellinc institutions...

Yours sincerely,

/l r-,l \ -"".f;**ro

DG Fl ' " . ' '

5 01 rut l

ares 53 13EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE GENEFiAIECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRSFinancial stab liry and monetgryalhilsFlnanclal lmrltutlon3 end flnanclal siablllty

Brussels,ECFIN/E3IEK/LB (2010)

Subiect: Youi letter ofNovember 17, 2010, regarding the Eu/Vatican Monetary Agreement

Dear Mr. Levy,

I thank you for your letter, where you ask for clarifications about the special authority which theVatican is setting up in order to implement anti-money laundering measures - the 'Auto td dieInformazione finanziaria' (AIF). It should be noted that the Vatican law hansposing Directive2005/60/EC on the prevention of the use ofthe financial system for the purpose ofmoney launderingand teno st financing is still at a &aft stage. According to information fiom the Vatican, it isexpected to enter into force as ofJanuary 1, 2011.

Please find below my answers to your specific questions.

1) The Directive 2005/60lEC of the Euopean Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 onthe prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and teroristfinancing aims to prevent the use of the financial system for the purpose of moDey laundering andtenorist financing. This Directive requires Member States to prohibit money laundering and tenoristfinancing ald to set up a preventive system obliging the financial sector and a wide range of otherpgrsons and entities to undenake certain measures: these inciude inler alia identiiyihg their customers,keeping appropriate records, establishing intemal procedures to train staff and guard against moneylaundering and reporting suspicion of money laundering and teno st financing to the competentnational authorities. As an EU Directive, Directive 2005/60/EC is not directly applicable and EUMember States have to tanspose its requirements into their national legislation (Article 288 of theTreaty on the Functionilg of the European Union), which all EU Member States have done. As Imentioned in my reply to your previous letter, the Monetary Agreement between the EU and theVatican City State obliges the latter to implement the Directive in its legal order.However, the entities subject to anti-money laundering - combating the financing of tenorismobligations are limited to natual and legal persons; thus, states as such are not covered by the

BRIMSTONE & CO,Attomeys & SOLICITORS1629 K Street Nw Suite 300Washington DC 20006 USATEUFAX 1-202-3t8-2406

Commission eurcpeenn€, B-1049 Bruxelies / Eurcpese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel, Beisium. Telephon€: (32-2) 299 11 ll.Office BUI 0/034. Telelhoner direct line (32-21296 97 E5

Directive. Moreover, the directive 2005/60,8C does not cover the compensation ofpe$ons who havebeen the victims of money laundering offences or predicate offence to money larmdering. It isfurthermore to be noted, that the Directive provides for minimum harmonisation which means thatMember States may adopt or retain in force stricter provisions in this fi€ld than those laid down in theDirective in older to prevent money laundering and tenorist financing.

The role ofthe European Commission in this context is as followsr if a Member State fails to pass therequired national legislation, or if the national legislation does not adequately comply with therequirements ofthe Directive, the European Comrnission may initiate legal action against the MemberState. However, under the Treaty on Euopean Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of theEuopean Union, the European Commission has no general powers to interyene in padicular cases asdescribed in your letter. With regard to the explanations provided above, you should seek redress atnational level tl|Ioueh the comDetent autho ties.

2) According to the draft Vatican law tansposing the Directive, The 'Autoritd die lnformazionefinanziaria' (AIF) will be composed of a chief executive oflicer and his/her staff will be appointedftom among persons ofadequate and proven competence and professionalism.

3) The Authority's rulings are within the fiamework ofEU law but they are only indirectly subject tojudicial review. lt means that if the Vatican City State fails to properly tanspose the Directive of itdoes not adequately comply with the requirements of the Directive, the European Commissiol mayinitiate legal action against the Vatican City State. However, as mentioned under the reply to question1) above, the European Commission has no general powers to intervene in particular cases asdescribed in your letter.

Yours sincerely,

Benjamin Angel

Brussels,ECFrN/E3IRV (2011)

DG ECFIN

0B 12 2011

art 451\534

Subject: Your letter of Novernber 28, 201l, regarding the EU/Vatican Monetary Agreernent and

the role of the Autoriti di Informazione Finanziaria (AIF)

Dear Mr. Lely,

Thank you the above letter, by which you request the European Commission to investigate allegedshortcomings of the AIF. In addition to what we stated on December 09, 2010 and January 5, 201 1 inresponse to your previous letters, I am pleased to answer to your request as follows:

Pursurmt to Article 8 (l) (b) of the 2010 Monetary Agreement, the Vatican City State shall undertaketo adopt all appropriate measures with a view to implementing the EU legal acts and listed in the An-nex in the field of, amongst others, prevention of money laundering.

As detailed in our previous response, Directive 2O05l60lEC of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose ofmoney laundering and terrorist financing aims to prevent the use of the financial systern for the pur-pose of money laundering and terrorist financing. Directive 2005/60lEC is part of the Amex to theAgreanent. While implanenting the provisions of this Directive, the Vatican City State has set up theFinancial Intelligence Unit (Autoritd di lnformazione Finanziaria (AIF)). Pursuant to Article 20 of Di-rective 2005/60/EC, applicable to the Vatican City State by means of the Monetary Agreonort, theAIF shall be responsible for receiving and to the extent permitted, requesting, analysing and dissemi-nating to the competent authorities, disclosures of information which concern potential money laun-dering. The cooperation duties of Financial lntelligence Units are laid down in detail in Council Deci-sion 200O/642|JHA conceming arangements for cooperation between financial intelligence units ofthe Mernber States in respect of exchanging information. This Council Decision will be added to the

BRIMSTONE & CO.Attomeys & SOLICITORS1629 K Street NW Suite 300Washinglon DC 20006 USATEL//FAX 1 -202 -318 -2406

Commission europeenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (32-2) 299 11 11.Offrce: BU-1 0/034. Telephone: direcl line (32-2) 296 97 85.

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONOIRECTORATE GENERALECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRSFinancial stability and monetary affairsFinancial institutions and financial stabiliWHead of Unit

Annex of the Monetary Agreement and apply to the AIF. Should the Vatican City State fail to complywith the AIF's duties under the Directive or Decision, the European Union may bring the matter beforethe Court of Justice in line with Article 10 (2) of the Monetary Agreement.

With regard to the alleged shortcoming of the AIF (AIF not independent, AIF staff officials from theIstituto per le Opere di Religione, AIF not replying to your conespondence) and the AIF's cooperationand investigation duties under the Directives, the following has to be understood:

The AIF is in charge of receiving information from the institutions and percons covered by the Di-rective and analysing and disserninating to the competent authorities (Articles 2l and 22 of Directive2005160/EC). Moreover, the AIF will be obliged to cooperate with other Financia.l lntelligence Unitsfrom EU Member States as per Council Decision 2000/642|JHA.

The institutions and persons obliged provide information to tlle AIF are defined in Article 2 of Di-rective 2005/60/EC and are those who me involved in larger cash management and payment transac-tions: credit institutions, financial institutions, auditors, trust and company service providers, real es-tate agents and others. The AIF is obliged to receive and analyse information received from this groupof interlocutors.

Persons or groups of individuals other than those defined in the Directive are not obliged to provideinformation to firancial intelligence units, nor have the latter an obligation to treat requests from thesepersons or groups. Under normal circumstances, an individual who is victim ofor aware of potentialmoney laundering would or could inform police or other law enforcement bodies, it being understoodthat police and the law enforcement bodies would then have to report to their Financial lntelligenceUnits.

Given that your clients are neither belonging to the groups defined in Directive 2005156/EC nor are,for obvious reasons, staffof Financial Intelligence Units from other EU Member States, the AIF is notobliged under the Monetary Agreement to provide you with infonnation or respond to your requests.

The obligations of the Vatican City State towards the European Union to combat money launderingobligations as laid in the above Directive and Decision are solely govemed by the Monetary Agree-ment. One may regret that the AIF has not responded to your correspondence, but the European Com-mission is neither in a position nor entitled to question and judge the administrative procedures andcommunication policy of the Vatican City State on matters that are not covered by the MonetaryAseement.

Benjamin Angel

Yours sincerely,

BnrnastoNE& Co.JoN.aTxIN LEVY

I629 K STREET NW SUITE 3OOWASHINGToN DC 20006 USATELIFAX + r -2o2-S | 8-24OG

cHAM B E Rs@en r u sroN EAN DcoM p/\Ny.coM

February 10,2012

European CommissionDirectorate General for Economic and Financial AffairsFinancial Stability & Monetary AffairsFinancial Institutions & Financial StabilityHead of Unit - Mr. Benjamin AngelB-1049 Brussels, Belgium

Fax: (+J/) 2 29 809 98

In re: (Vatican) Autoritd di Informazione Finanziaria (AIF) & EU/VaticanMonetary Agreement and European Commission Letters of January 5,2011(no. 9319), December 8, 2011 (no. 1324531) referencing Directive2005160/EC

Dear Mr. Angel:

This is a notice under Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of theEuropean Union to the Commission to take the requested action.

It is requested that the European Commission take appropriate action toenforce applicable provisions Directive 2005/601 EC (hereafter "theDirective") against the Vatican Autorita di Informazione Finanziaria(hereafter "VAIF") and Vatican City State, subject to EU jurisdictionpursuant to the EU/Vatican Monetary Agreement, for the reasons statedbelow and incorporated by reference in our previous correspondence with theCommission. If action is not taken in 60 duyr, a complaint will be filed withthe European General Court seeking relief under Articles265 and266 of theTreaty on the Functioning ofthe European Union.

On January 5,2011 following a series of letters with the EU Commission andthe European Central Bank, the Commission referred our allegations of post

l']H*,*rr.r*E & co

World War Two era money laundering of assets from former Yugoslavia bycurrent and past account holders at le Opere di Religione (hereafter IOR) tothe newly established Istituto per to the Vatican Autoritd di InformazioneFinanziaria (VAIF).

The VAIF has refused to acknowledge or respond to our correspondencedated July 2,2011 and September 24,20L1. We also attempted to fax the AIFon September 2,20IL Given the passage of time, a response is not likely tobe forthcoming from the VAIF.

We then complained to the Commission which however refused to take actionfor the reasons cited in its December 8,2011 letter and discussed infra.

After careful consideration and research, we respectfully disagree with theCommission's interpretation that the VAIF may willfully ignore ourcomplaints of money laundering at the IOR and still remain withincompliance ofthe Directive. The Commission's analysis of December 8 is inerror with both the letter and spirit of the Directive.

The Commission enoneously claims that the VAIF may ignore reports ofmoney laundering because the reporting party, attorney-solicitor Dr. JonathanLevy and his law firm Brimstone & Co., does not fall under the ambit of theDirective, Article 2(1) and therefore is not among the list of interlocutors theVAIF is required to respond to.

The Commission is in error; the complaint was made to the VAIF by alicensed, professional attorney about specific large financial fansactions oflooted properly falling under the ambit of the Directive and VAIF's owngoverning documents which vest it with oversight responsibilities for theIOR.

Directive Article 2(1X3Xb) specifies that independent legal professionals inthe exercise of their activities that are acting on behalf of and fortheir client inany financial transaction are obliged to report money laundering to themember state FIU which is the VAIF for transactions within or involvingentities of the Vatican City State.

The interpretation of this section of the Directive has been construed broadlyrather than narowly. See Also Nobel Chemicals Ltd v EuropeanCommission (C-550/07 P [2010], 5 C.M.L.R. 19. An attorney representing

claimants to disputed property who has been engaged in litigation with theIOR and one of its depositors since 1999 is not a casual observer but is alicensed legal professional acting in his professional capacity. Further he has

come into possession of substantial documentation supporting the allegationof ongoing money laundering of Holocaust derived assets or profits at theIOR.

The Directive does not define the term "financial transaction" but aconstructive or resulting trust of the type implied in law has been createdbetween the IOR and Holocaust victims until such time the IOR accounts fortheir funds.

Further, it is disingenuous to refer Holocaust survivors to Vatican policeauthorities or the Vatican FIU. The VAIF functions as both the treasurypolice and FIU for the Vatican City State. The VAIF is the only competentauthority given the population of the Vatican City State amounts to only 800residents.

Ongoing money laundering has been considered before in the case of the

Swiss National Bank. The SNB's deliberate retention of looted assets wascorrectly described as money laundering. The SNB investigation by the

Volcker and Bergier commissions led to the eventual settlement of the issue.

The IOR matter is no less serious, it is disappointing that the Commissionfeels it must lend its political and moral support to the IOR and VAIF bydeclining its duty to enforce the Directive as it has many times before withother EU members such as France, Poland, and Spain.

While we appreciate the Commission's position of seeming rectitude, theCommission must rcaliz-e that it is aiding and abetting the VAIF and IOR intheir ongoing refusal to account for Holocaust derived assets. If theCommission doubts the veracity of our claims, we again invite theCommission to consult the 1998 US State Department Report on The Fate ofthe Ustasha Treasury available ott www.state.gov/wwilregions/eur/rpt-9806_ng_links.html.

The Vatican City State has failed to fulfill its treaty obligation and appropriateaction against it should be taken beginning with a request that the VAIFrespond to the report made to it by Holocaust survivors.

Sincerely,

Dr. Jonathan LevyAttorney and Solicitor for Holocaust Survivors and Organizations:Dr. Milan Bates, William Dorich, Vojislav Poduda , Jasenovac MemorialCenter, Independent Council of Serbian Rom4 Republik Srpska Krajina inExile et al.

Copies to:

Director General for Legal ServicesEuropean Central Bank

Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal AffairsDirectorate of MonitoringCouncil of Europe

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONOIRECTORATE GENERALECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRSFinancial stability and monetary affairsFinancial institutions and ffnancial $abilityHead of Unit

DG rt)P'tru

08 i2 2011

Brussels, arc 4 ,J\ 5 31ECFrN/E3/RV (201r)

Subject: Your letter of November 28,201l, regarding the EU/Vatican Monetary Agreement and

the role of the Autoritir di Informazione Finanziaria (AIF)

Dear Mr. Lcrry,

Thank you the above letter, by which you request the European Commission to investigate allegedshortcomings of the AIF. In addition to what we stated on December 09, 2010 and January 5, 201I inresponse to your previous letters, I am pleased to answer to your request as follows:

Pursuant to Article 8 (1) (b) of the 2010 Monetary Agreement, the Vatican City State shall undertaketo adopt all appropriate measures with a view to implanenting the EU legal acts and listed in the An-ncx in the freld of, amongst others, prevention of money laundering.

As dctailed in our prcvious response, Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose ofmoney laundering and terrorist financing aims to prevant the use of the financial system for the pur-pose of money laundering and terrorist financing. Directive 2005/60iEC is part of the Annex to theAgreement. While implernenting the provisions of this Directive, the Vatican City State has set up theFinancial Intelligence Unit (Autoriti di Informazione Finanziaria (AIF)). Pursuant to Article 20 of Di-rective 20O5l60lEC, applicable to the Vatican City State by means of the Monetary Agreement, theAIF shall be responsible for receiving and to the extent permitted, requesting, analysing and dissemi-nating to the competent authorities, disclosures of information which concern potential money laun-dering. The cooperation duties of Financial Intelligence Units are laid down in detail in Council Deci-sion 2000r'642lJHA concerning iurangements for cooperation between financial intelligence units ofthe Member States in respect of exchanging information. This Council Decision will be added to the

BRIMSTONE & CO.Attorneys & SOLICITORS1629 K Street NW Suite 300Washington DC 20006 USA'rEL/FAX | -202-3 | 8-?406

Commission europdenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (32-2)ZW 11 '11.

Office: BU-1 0/034. Telephone: direct line (32-2) 296 97 85.

Annex of the Monetary Agreement and apply to the AIF. Should the Vatican City State fail to complywith the AIF's duties under the Directive or Decision, the European Union may bring the matter beforethe Court of Justice in line with Article l0 (2) of the Monetary Agreonent.

With regard to the alleged shortcoming of the AIF (AIF not independent, AIF staff officials from theIstituto per le Opere di Religione, AIF not replying to your correspondence) and the AIF's cooperationand investigation duties under the Directives, the following has to be understood:

The AIF is in charge of receiving information from the institutions and penions covered by the Di-rective and analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities (Articles 2l and 22 of Directive2005/60lEC). Moreover, the AIF will be obliged to cooperate with other Financial lntelligence Unitsfrom EU Member States as per Council Decision 2000/&2/JHA.

The instirutions and persons obliged provide information to the AIF are defined in Article 2 of Di-rective 2005160/EC and are those who are involved in larger cash management and payment transac-tions: credit institutions, financial institutions, auditors, trust and company service providers, real es-tate agents and others. The AIF is obliged to receive and analyse information received from this groupof interlocutors.

Persons or groups of individuals other than those defined in the Directive are not obliged to provideinformation to financial intelligence units, nor have the latter an obligation to treat requests from thesepersons or groups. Under normal circumstances, an individual who is victim of or aware of potentialmoney laundering would or could inform police or other law enforcement bodies, it being understoodthat police and the law enforcement bodies would then have to report to their Financial IntelligenceUnits.

Given that your clients are neither belonging to the groups defined in Directive 2005/56lEC nor are,for obvious reasons, staffof Financial Intelligence Units from other EU Mernber States, the AIF is notobliged under the Monetary Agreement to provide you with information or respond to your requests.

The obligations of the Vatican City State towards the European Union to combat money launderingobligations as laid in the above Directive and Decision are solely governed by the Monetary Agree-ment. One may regret that the AIF has not responded to your correspondence, but the European Com-mission is neither in a position nor cntitled to question and judge the administrative procedures andcommunication policy of the Vatican City State on matters that are not covered by the MonetaryAgrcement.

Benjamin Angel

Yours sincerely.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS Finandal stability and monetary affairs Financial institutions stability mechanisms Head of Unit

Brussels, ECFIN/E3/RV (2012)

Subject: Your letter of 10 February 2012 regarding the EU/Vatican Monetary Agreeement and Directive 2005/60/EC to be applied by the Vatican Autorità di Informazione Finanziaria

Dear Mr. Levy,

Thank you very much for your letter of 10 February 2012, by which you refer to previous correspondence with regard to the above issue and ask the European Commission to take appropriate action.

The concerns raised and repeated in your letters were largely addressed in our previous correspondence to which I would like to refer.

As to your request that the European Commission take action against the Vatican Autorità di Informazione Finanziaria (hereafter AIF) with regard to Directive 2005/60/EC and potential money laundering by the Istituto per le Opere di Religione (hereafter lOR), the following has to be understood: The European Union has signed a monetary agreement with the Vatican City State, which set up the AIF in 2011. By means of the Monetary Agreement, the provisions of Directive 2005/60/EC apply to the AIF within the jurisdiction of the Vatican City State. The IOR, however, does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Vatican City State but belongs to the Holy See, which is a different entity under international public law. It must be understood that the Holy See and the European Union have not signed whatsoever agreement on the application of Directive 2005/60/EC or any other legal instrument to combat money laundering. Therefore, the European Union has no means to apply or enforce any rules on combat of money laundering (including Directive 2005/60/EC) to the Holy See and natural persons or corporate entities falling within its jurisdiction.

Against this background, the European Commission cannot take any action to apply or enforce any provisions of Directive 2005/60/EC against the AIF with regard to the IOR.

Yours sincerely.

Benjamin Angel

BRIMSTONE & CO. Attorneys & SOLICITORS 1629 K Street NW Suite 300 Washington DC 20006 USA TEL/FAX 1-202-318-2406

Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (32-2) 299 11 11. Office: BU-1 0/034. Telephone: direct line (32-2) 296 97 85.

Ref. Ares(2012)295879 - 13/03/2012

BRIMSTONE& GO.

JONATHAN LEVY1€.29 K STREET NW SUITE 3OO

Y:T;HT|;;:""'"'T;.'jcHAM B E Rs@ en t rrsroN EAN DcoM PANY'coM

MaY 28, 2012

European CommissionDirectorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs

Financial Stability & Monetary AffairsFinancial Institutions & Financial Stability

Head of Unit - Mr. Benjamin Angel

B-1 049 Brussels, Belgium

Fax: (+32)229 809 98

Inre: (Vatican) AutoriL'i di lnformazioneFinanziaria (AIF) a n];nra191

Monetary Agreement and European commission Letter of March 13,2012

Dear Mr. Angel:

we have thoroughly researched your letter of March 13,2012 and believe

it contains an impoitant factual erTor upon wh.ich the resolution of this

matter hinges - the juridic status and citizenship of the Istituto per le Opere

di Retigione alsotiown as the IOR. Therefore we have foregone filing a

Co*piu-, for failure to Act with the EU Court in favor of requesting that

yoor.roosideryourfrndinginlightoftheevidenceherein'

In your March 13 ,2012 letter (attached) you explain that the IoR is outside

the jurisdiction of Dire"tit e XiOStOOIEb because it belongs to th9 tt9!y f ee

and not the Vatican City Sttt . This being significant because the EU has

no agreement with the HolY See'

Whileweappreciatethelogicofthisargumen!flgtuallyitisincorrect.The IOR is under the jurisdiction of the Vatican City State' The IOR is a

juridical person of the Vatican City State. To prove ttris point, I am

attaching sworn affidavits by Awocato Franzo Grande Stevens' the Italian

afforney for the IOR and ttre Vatican City State and Professor Caridi whose

opi"io" on this maffer was cornmissioned by the IOR through its attorney

Mr. Lena. Both caridi and Stevens have testified the IoR is directly

connected to the Vatican City State'

The Declaration of Franzo Grande Stevens

The declaration of Stevens is both authoritative and binding on the IOR as

Stevens is or was the attorney for the State of Vatican City and the Vatican

Bank (IoR). The most salient paragraphs of this declaration state:

1. Stevens has been the attorney for both the IOR and Vatican City State'

10. The IoR is created under the laws of the Vatican city State

11. The IOR carries out a mission and goals on behalf of the Vatican Clty

State.

14. The President of the IoR reports to the Pope's Highest Temporal

Authority in the Vatican City State'

15. The IoR operates in the territory of the vatican city state'

lT.TheloRfundstheVaticanCityState'sgovernment.

While the IOR does perfonn some financial services for the Holy See'

Stevens does not indicate that the lORbelongs to the Holy See but instead

thatitiscloselyconnectedtotheVaticanCityState.

TheDeclaretionofProfessorSettimoCaridi

The declaration of Professor Caridi was commissioned by the IOR's

American attorney, Mr. Jeffrey Lena" to provide expert legal opinion on

the juridic status oitrr. IoR. The key paragraphs are as follows:

31. The IoR is apparently a dual entity of the Holy See and vatican city

State: "The IORil a pubiic juridic person constituted by thc authority of

the sovereigr in conformitawith the canon law, the law of the Holy See

and the law of the State of Vatican City'"

37. As a dual entity, the IoR serves both the Holy see and Vatican city

State : "The tnstituie can accept deposits of assets from entities or

individuals of the Holy See orof the state of vatican city."

38. The IOR is a fiduciary of both the Holy See and Vatican City State'

40. The IOR is located in Vatican City'

57. The IOR is an autonomous juridic person.

CONCLUSION

The testimony of Stevens under penalty of perjury must be considered

binding on the IOR as Stevens made this affidavit in his official capacity as

auornJy for the IOR and Vatican City State. A position he held for fifteen

years prior to the affidavit berng executed'

The Carridi testimony is expert opinion not sworn testimony but should be

considered persuasivl with the Steven's testimony taking prededence in

the event of a disPute-

Therefore we request the following:

1. The EU Commission amends its frnding of March 13,2012 that the IOR

"belongs to the Holy See" and find instead that the IOR is tmder the dual

jurisdiction of the Vatican City State'

2. TheEU Commission make available its good ofiices to insure the

vatican AIF responds to a more detailed money laundering complaint we

will be filing.

Sincerely,

Dr. Jonathan LevY

Attorney and Solicitor for Holocaust Survivors and Organizations:

Dr. Milan Bates, william Dorich, Vojislav Poduda, Jasenovac Memorial

Center, Independent Council of Serbian Rom4 Republik Srpska Krajina in

Exile et al.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS Financial stability and monetary affairs Financial institutions stability mechanisms Head of Unit

Brussels, ECFIN/E3/RV (2012)

DG ECFIN

1 3 03 2012 ares

Subject: Your letter of 10 February 2012 regarding the EU/Vatican Monetary Agreeement and Directive 2005/60/EC to be applied by the Vatican Autorita di Informazione Finanziaria

Dear Mr. Levy,

Thank you very much for your letter of 10 February 2012, by which you refer to previous correspondence with

regard to the above issue and ask the European Commission to take appropriate action.

The concerns raised and repeated in your letters were largely addressed in our previous correspondence to

which I would like to refer.

As to your request that the European Commission take action against the Vatican Autorita di Informazione Fi-

nanziaria (hereafter AIF) with regard to Directive 2005/60/EC and potential money laundering by the Istituto

per le Opere di Religione (hereafter IOR), the following has to be understood: The European Union has signed

a monetary agreement with the Vatican City State, which set up the AIF in 2011. By means of the Monetary

Agreement, the provisions of Directive 2005/60/EC apply to the AIF within the jurisdiction of the Vatican City

State. The 10R, however, does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Vatican City State but belongs to the Holy See, which is a different entity under international public law. It must be understood that the Holy See and the

European Union have not signed whatsoever agreement on the application of Directive 2005/60/EC or any oth-

er legal instrument to combat money laundering. Therefore, the European Union has no means to apply or en-

force any rules on combat of money laundering (including Directive 2005/60/EC) to the Holy See and natural

persons or corporate entities falling within its jurisdiction.

Against this background, the European Commission cannot take any action to apply or enforce any provisions

of Directive 2005/60/EC against the AIF with regard to the 10R.

Yours sincerely,

Benjamin Angel

BRIMSTONE & CO. Attorneys & SOLICITORS 1629 K Street NW Suite 300 Washington DC 20006 USA TEL/FAX 1-202-318-2406

Commission europeenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (32-2) 299 11 11. Office: BU-1 0/034. Telephone: direct line (32-2) 296 97 85.

i.K"3'""i"13[i trSf; i 9n3l3u*"I 152 Kcith AvenueBcrkclcv, CA. 94708'1607TeteDhone; (510) 665 l7l3facsi i l i le: (510) 665 1?12'friiiiiii

iiiii ii arl"nses' jur isdiaional or ot herw ise)

Atlomey for INST1TUTE FOR RELIGIOUS WORKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CAI-IFORNIA

EMIL ALPEzuN' Ct AI,

Plaintiffs'

VATICAN BANK (INSTITUTE OFRELICIOUS wOI{KS)' et al'

Case No. C 99-4941 MMC

DECTARATION OF AWOCATO

:IS3B'"5$'83#$"KI" -H' "Hii${'$3"?'#liS nn-*'oCOMPI,AINT

Defcnd!nts,

l, Ar r'. Fralzo Grande Stevens' hereby declare as follows:

I. I am a.n Attorney lic-4nced to practioe at the bar ofTulin' ltaly as well as et the ltalian Supreme

court in Rome. I have been ihe President ofthe National Forensic Bosrd (i e Chairman ofthc ltallan

Bar), For arcund fiffeen yea$, I have been the attomey for the State ofvatican City (the Holy See)' 8nd

rhe lOR, My present wotk address is: viadel Carmine 2' Tudn' ltaly' My Romc officc addrets is via

Ca$iodoro 15, Rome' ItaIY'

2. Exccpt as to those mattsrs $atcd on irformatiod and bcliof' the facts contaitcd in this

decla.ratio! are based on my personal knowledge' ard jfcalled as a witness I could testify competently to

said facts,

\\0\ 1120s

3. I am ditectly familiar with the tegal struclure and the practiccs ofthe IOR' the Covernmenl of

the state ofvatican City and thc Secretary ofstate'

4. ln suppolt ofDefcndant lOR's Motion to Dismiss Plaintifls' Third Afiended Complaint' I

offer rhe following:

5. The institutional structure of thc IOR is as follows: al the head ofthe siructurc is the

Conmissione Cardinalaia, or "Cardinals' Commission"' This Commisrion is composed of five Cardinal

\.vho are appoillted by the Sovereign Pontili Thc Cardinal's Commission ofthe IOR is headed by Sodaro

Cardinal Angelo, who is presently the Secretaiy of State of tle Vatican City State- The Conunission

meets at lesst twice per yea!. The pnmary pulpose of Commissioo is to review oompliance of the IOR

with its intemal statutory nortns' ano to check on the patrimony ofthe IOR to cnsure that its asscts

.€main at a saiisfactory level. This commission also apPoints and removes members of the OversiSht

council (whose fi[tction is discussed below)'

6 The primary role of thc Cardinals' Commission is to Prcvide an ilstitutionat link betwcen the

govcrnment ofthc Vaticaq City State and the IOR for goven[ngot oversiSht pulposes over the IOR'

7. Below this level is the Direzione' ot Ditcctorate This roughly coresponds to an opetatlve

"Board of Directors"which carries on the cveryday administration of thc IOR' Thc mcmbels ofthis

boad are apPointed by th' Oversight Council $bject to approvBl ofthe Cardinsls' Cornnission This

boaJd is r€sponsible fic! the operational activities ofthe IOR'

E. This institutional relationship bctween thc Cadinals' Cotnmission' the Prlate' dnd the Board

is set fonh in fte Sovcreign Pontifls' Chirograph daled March l' 1990i the organizationat structure ofth€

IOR is given further detail in thc Sl4'r'rto' or "by'laws" dsted March I' lgg0 According to thc

Chirographs ad the by'laws, the IOR is a Canon Law Juridic PeNon' which caII be sucd in its own name

and which has its own lcgal r€Presentativ€ Nothing in the fu[darnental mission or rclationship b€tween

tbe IOR atd the Vatican City Staie Ciovcrttnent was substanidlly changed between the old and the new

legal structuje of the IOR'

9. The IOR is locstedin the vcry healt of Vatican City, in a tower near 0!e Sant' Arr'la Gate' lls

rN sOFpoRT-,FloRG Morlolro olsMlssdmF6FsrEvENs oEoL

-ca,4 1 MMc

, l t l iFo ur , Ld !9c l

predecessor institutions were located in the sane place aDd the IOR has never had any branch office

outside ofthe Vatican City. This central and exclusive physical location reflects the fact, described

below, that the IOR performs central firancial functions for the Vatican City State Govemmenr.

10. The IOR is not a citizcn of$e United States snd is not created uoder the Iaws ofaoy fiird

cou ry (i.e. it is created under the Laws ofthe Vatican State).

I l, Thc IOR peform an essential function in the economic govedfiient ofthe State of Vatican

City. Ajnong the other bodies that perform such firnctions gre the Plefectue for Economic Affairs and

the Administration ofthe Patlimony ofthe Holy See. The IOR carries out the mission and policy go8ls of

the State of Vatican City.

12. The centra.l position ofthe IOR in the financial activity oflhe State of vatican City is

confinocd by thc Corstitulio Apostoltcd Pastor ror!.t that has provided for a Committee ofcardiaals

(hcaded by Cardinal Sodano) that has ultimate power to suPervise thc effectiveness ofthe IOR'S activily.

Anicle 24 of &at documenl, which refe6 to th€ "special institutc. ' for msnaging econornic assets

colltmittcd to it. , ," refers to thc IOR.

13. vy'hen matters come to the dttention ofthe Presideot of th€ OversiSht Counsel' Professor

Angeto caloia, or to the sftention ofth€ DiEctor Geneml commendatorE Lelio scaletti, which involve

any sort oipolicy decision, or strategic decision about the loR's activities, they ale commonly refened to

the attention ofthe Secretary ofState, who decidcs how to procced' In such cases, the IOR follo{'s, and

it has been the custom ofthe loR to follow, any advice that the secretary c.nsidcrs in the best inte!€sls

ofthe vatican Stat€. This i9 based upon my cxperienoe in working with both rcpresentatives ofthe IoR

and wilh the Secr€tarY of Stote.

14. I can also add that, whiie the day-m-day opelstions ofthe IOR are managed by the IoR i$elf

(as it is natural for ajuridical person) the custom and practice ofthe IOR is attuned and responsive to the

policy vision ofthe Searetary of State, \aho is the highest dclegate ofti€ SoveEign Pontiffs temporal

authority over Vatican City State For this reason, it is the practice of the President and Director Ccneml

ofthe IoR to report to Cardinal Sodano in his caPacity of Secletary of State and as chainnan as the

cardinal's commission, snd to fumish him with any infomation and records that he.equires' ln this

sense, the Secreta.ry of State's function, fo! all maltels ofPanicular importance in the IOR, can t'est b€

defined as ar| active supervisory role. Hence, the Secretary ofstatc has considelable conlrol ovcr the

programrlliDg and execution oflOR activities (including budget and opetations) that he considers of

State interest.

15. The IOR oflers and p€rforms the following services to the vaticar! State a'td its temporal

head, the SovereiSn Pontiff. It acts as a clea.ring house for payments ttetween the vtrious Valican State

agencics. lt finances a vaiefy of reliSious works within the Stale It opemtcs the electronic Paymcnt a'1d

ATM network in place throughout Vatic€$ State territory' This senice is provided at less th8n cost' and

a5 a service to the Vatican State. It manages the pe$ion system for its own employces as well as all the

o6er employ€es ofthc Vaiican State. lD this way, the IOR supports the operations ofth€ Vaticsn Ciry

State in its own lenitory'

16. The structuc and regulations goveming the Pcnsion System for IOR cmPloyees and othet

valican Sta1e employees js virtually idcntical,

17. In keeping with th€ IOR'S mission ofPious purposes, at the Secretary ofState's request' lo

his capacity as tcmporal dclcgat€ ofthe Sovcrcign Pontiff, the IOR makes available to the Stat€ of

vatican City Govenunent flmds to puBuc its pious Purposes ln this sense the IOR is used to forward

the goals ofthe State of Vatican City, and to othcrwise calry out State ofvatican City foreign relations

obj€ctives.

18. At thc cnd ofeacb year, once the funds ncccssary for thc IOR'S moncy managcmcni for

pious purposes are set aside, remaining fiurds are made available to the Holy See to csrry out its goals

when fund r$anagement has not produced suJlicicnt funds' no sucb payment is made' howevcr' No profil

is kept by the IoR.

19. ltre Hoty See bas, on p€tst occasions prgvided {inancial assistance for the IOR'

20. 'Ihe IOR is a limit€d dcpo$tory institlltion lt is not open to lhe public in the sense that the

depositors a.re essentially limi(ed to Vatican State employe€s' members ofthe Holy See' religious orders'

and persons who deposit rnoney destined, at least irl part' for works ofpiety'

21. It is the custom and practice ofthe IOR to not retain tecotds afterten yea$ Tlere is

presently no employee, and I know ofno person, who workcd at the IOR in the yea$ of World Wsr li'

22. The IOR is a creature of tho soverei8J'l will and could be wound up gnd its assets liquidated

by direction ofthe sovereign. According to the ChirogaPh thst has created the IoR as a Ca$o[ Iaw

juddical person, tbe IOR cannot change its bylaws. Any changes to the by-laws would orly be made with

final appmval ofthe Sovcrcign Pontiff.

23. The origin of the frlnd that gave birth to the IOR was a capilal contribulion to its sntccedent

institution, the Conn ission ad Plas Causas, cteatcd by Pope Leo XIU in 1887'

24. IOR is a Canon Law Juridic person whose fundamental pupose is to pronrote pious acts As

such, it does not manufacturc or sell any goods in either lhe State of Califomia or tbe United States' nor

docs it sell aIIy sctviccs to thc general publio in eithe' the State of Califomia o( the Uniled States'

25, IOR has no rcgistered agent for lcgal notificatio$ in either the state of califomia or the

United Slates.

26. loR has no oflices or ot$er facility of 8ny kind in eithet the State of Cdlifomig or ihe United

StAtes.

27. toR does not owa lcasc or rcnt any rcal propcrty in cither thc State ofcaliforrda or the

United States.

28. IOR has no cmployeca based in either the State of Califomia or the United Ststcs'

29. IOR conducts no advertising 8nd docs not market any products in either the State of

Califomis or the United Slates.

30' IoR has oo mailing of other addrcss' tclePhone number' telex, or fax number by which it may

be reached in eithcr thc State ofcaliforflia or the United States'

31. None oftbe members offhe board ofdirecto$ and council(charged with day-to-day

opetations) of IOR is a rssident ofeither the State of Califomia or the United States'

32. IOR does not diiect ot control the day'to-dey operations or management of any other entity

t {' rs

30.011 . i0CC l8 :335r0 665 r7r2

tlut conduc6 bqsircrs in lhc Uoitcd Slslcs.

33, Nothtng In tbt! dqclantioa, rrhich b mad6 oDly lo rddt4i itsu6 of bj€ct mrnq ard

pcriolrl jEbdlgtion wbictr mey arisa In drc prqi€lt coltorlrsy, b mrrnt lo, ot thould bc ttk n 13,

suhnitting io &cju.idictiotr of thi! Court, o. valvilg lDy riSht to clsim govqri8t itqoroity or ![t olb.t

priYi,cges

I rl.chrc !!dcr lodry ol p.rrrry ||!d.r li. l.wr ol tt. UDlacd Sar;rt of A.cricr ahrt tba

forqo|!8 tt trur md corrart

Pr..c[lcd on 30 d.y of Orbb.n 2000 rt TEr|!' lt ly.

Avyoc.to Ftrnzi Gt|!rt! St!v!r|, Aaaomcy fo.IOR |!d Sbtc of Vrtl.r! Clry

is,$$iilf xtif#i;i'su*^I'.li"ff"'lHlilli'-'''T'kobdD.: (5l o) 665 1713

tfr')ni?*t1P:f :"8)"'"".)uri'!'i.'';oaotoro'1t'tui'!)

Aflornqy for tNsTlTuIE FoR R.eLtGlOUs WOITKS

UNITED STATAS DISTRICT COIJRT

NORTTIERN DTSTRICT OF CA!|fORMA

ctle No. C 99'4941 MMC

iffi$ffiuiiffid;"iiiiiiii-it r.4trrtls' rtrrtD

L aw.l Frurro Gr{rdg st'vcoi' hscby drcbc |r toUo!'/ri

;:;;;;aued ' p'o"ri"'

" rt' uar or rsdn' lulv ., *all o. n th' Irdrro

L -- ___- 'L' tt"d&l|r o'O' Nadonrl Forcnsic Bortd (i'' Cblitgll

,,,,"i: j;; ;;"';lo *' *'"'"'*':::::]::il: :;*: ilill:l'sEl{tdc gos$ r$ '.""* ' _-' - -

| bcco lhc tnor'y lor lbc slarc of vatic.n cary ((hr nol}

Irartco b!r) For f,round ttno!! yc&t' lbrw -^ r..;^ trrlv- Mv R!r!i otli.c ..ldrl(also P!r).

For souno u'tew '*- . l, -. ,", ur" *,

"ol:nind 2, Tlrrio, luly. My Rorli ofii.c .ddr.sr

sc(). $d ltr loR' My P!cJ'!t wotl 'ddt"t

ir vir p$riodu.6 t5. Rooc' fttly ,r- ri{r c66t.1ncd in lhir'' ' ''

ia u"t+t tt ro *oie mlttr'! lrertd oo intol"o'rlon lrlil bcli'li tb! f4rtr coltrrtrc

*,,,-[;;;;" rov pflond Lnowlcdgc' lnd !f cdlcd 6] 6 *'ib'e5 I could rcitifv Gom9"'ntlv to

rod ftts.28

$I'8H3S3ilHi,T,".i"" "'

tt0v 1i 2000

3 | .m dilccrty funili$ r.,irb tlr l.gal lrflsiutr anC tlo pr..riccr ot dr tOR, lh. covalD!|.rt o,$! Sir^ra ot vdicr$ City |nd tha S.(r!tr y of St|t4.

4. 16 c'rPpol ofDcf€nd&t IOR'! Molion ro Dilrnis! PlEinnffr, Third /JlEndcd Corplatll, I

otfcr rbc folloe/in8:

S. Tb. puqrog! of tbi. &.lrrlrop ir lo plgvid€ funhor inforo.rion rctlicd rr, rh. cq.rporirio, ot

bt lOA.'t Conmirt:on. Cardhalizie, ot'!cr!dln b ' Corrurirsion" rcferled ro in roy Dcchr|tto{ ot

Av! 0!116 Ft4olo Cunda St.vror ln Suppofl ot Dcf.nd!,rr IOR'J Morjoo !o DiirDt3r Plrisrdf!' ?bird

A.rnond.d Compl.irl rnd lh particrdlr ro d.tdl th! dcnp i!rritutioaat linb bcrefccn thc IOR'3 C!di!dr'

CoEsoi.riot gDd rhs Sov.ruocar of Ar st.ra of Vadc|! Cry rncnlioncd ia lrn|$rgh 6 of Iny Fevio{t

drclrrdon.

6. Ofrlr 6v! rrcmbcr, ottb IOR'I cordlndt' Cos|tni$ion, rhc firrl. Atlt.lo C.dl6.l

Sodalo, ii laror|! tl|! 3ir hllboir rad.iAg c{dlaCa in $. co.dindt' ColhS€. b ll|G S.crctdrt 6t s(.ic

ol tlu Sr{r. V!.ior! Clly,.nd i. | !u.nb.r of C& Cosrlcit ofcrrilirrl| qnd 8i3hoF! (Codirlr, di

cardinati . Vct.cvi) ot lhc Soctarsy of 3 c'r Offlc., tlt conSrltsliou fo! th. Docttit!' of thc Faltlr

!h. Conir.grtion otEilboPr ud iha Confrslotion tor E st!l! Chrrch't Tht rc'9nd, Jobn Jo"Pb

Crrihd O'Coaror, wA!, lsrtl hh t!..n! d.!t!, . |nrftb.! ot th. Ccuacil tot $. Study of

Orllrlrt||ond &d Eco{lomF Prlbletlt of tlF Holy s'c' tdr a tncmbr' of Ib! Coi'|rcil o( cddin'ls !d

listrop! {,rthio tl* s..tEt{ry ofsLr|! t Ofrt..'.Dd 'lro h'ld biSb officd wilhio tbt Rotlto Ct|!ld"

CorftrcllrloE to! 6&rte$ Clrutch.r (Con8t<ta!"tt P't l2 Chi'* O'itnull) Rcc'ntlv' Ad!'n C|tdind

,oadpb Mrldr wtlr na.oltl to tlcracd bim on 'h! 'forn6tiot!'d Comtri..lotl 't Crdfurd! c$ditul

M.id., AJcbbirhoP otDcaort' tt t ErDlc' ot llr CoDstognioo tor !h! Chtty' qr' CohStta'tio! for

cuholis Edoc lon .rd tb, Pocfificrl Cbutl'il to( tb! P'ilgnl Crft of Mfur'di 'nd lrin'iltt P'6Pl''

Tl$ Olrd, Cr.to C..dln.l t'||5.o, l. . n tnirt otth' cosndl of C$4rndr anC qirhoPi ['i$in rt'

Sc(:rct|.y r.,! S.atc't Otric!, ud rlo holdr hir! offcG sithjr t'b' Ronlrn C\rlir'i Conlrcguion fo'

E$t trl ch!rcb.!. TDr fcs{rh. 8st|lo Jor' C|.dllrl cblltl'r t''ts' ii I m'hbcr ot thc council of

ca(dinatt and BithoP vi$in Uc 9€drEtrry of Srqp'r O!ft'c' and dro bctd bi8h gJncr !'ith!r tJ|E Ron l

siu@ "il-|.lm-

Curi.'1 CongEtadon for th! ldtlt{Gr of Con!'cd'd Lrf itd lhc So!i'!v for aPottolic Lifc

\Co,'tra6{zti''tz P.t lli lt kun di Vits C-n'ecrer. c L' Scci''e' At Uta APorroti'alr Thc 6frh 8du'rdo

csflUd.l Mrrdns goltulo, Ptcf.cr lor l! Contlssitioo tbr lnrdtuct of Cohrect|r'4 Lif' $d for

Socicriar of Aposloltc Llfc' b n nEmb$ of t}!€ Corncrt of C'Jdinrlt cJ|d BishoPs wit'bit rlte sicrcl.ty of

sr4E's Omc!, lrd .lto bctd bill oficc withb thc Holy St' |9 ' ft"lb'r df lht cosncll lo lb' Scctchrv

C.nrfll flf rhc Slnod ot Biiborg.

?. In tutDm.rr, rll tivc dtttrbct! (ifolt co||nti tb' lo!8_!lrhg' b{r' t'4dDtly 'Lct'ttd C|rdinrl

o'Co!Dor), hrve bccn !t rDbar| ot 0lr sccrtnry 6f Sl.'e'e rircnty'n^'o trlcr|$Gr Couocil of BishoPi tnd

Cd'illnlh, olc tr|.mblr it ttl! scrlltlsy of Std!' ud dl hold hiBh ofice cls€v''lE c $rioi! rbc tloly sca

or drc Rur'lt|l Curlr lo rddirion to rtdr 44i'c ln th! Otfic' of lhc S'crlliry ot strt' tttdrct rht IOR'

8' Tbit dlar mry b, cooti'ptd by 'on'olti!8 ot rb A'f,nttt'io Pon'ltcto 2@ 'Po^rtl.ic^l

Atrt.Usl.2ooo}.wbich6tbc!t!Dd.rdcornPrEhcDiivctlfgFDcewo.kpllblirhcdbyo|cl|olyscc

(PubUshct: Llbcrfu Valicsrls,2cfl], to dB'db' tfu otliccs und Pcdo trl of lh! st*! of Varic'$ Cilv rdd

thc world-$,ldc Rotll{l C{holic Chur.h'

t.lo4at3 ultlct ltco.lrt oft tjurt und" ric lrwJ ot thc Ulttd SrlI€ ot Amlrl" lfi't 3hc

lon'lolng b fruc.nd cotltcl' lvo kalrtL,

j.:tt:"t.,t 1. an -Oc'..."*y or O...irt,2m ta Tuttn, ll.ly'

Awoatto F rnro Grudo Slrvalr'ton .|!d Sr{rr of v llrn cttY

Jeffrey S. Lena SBN 189900LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY S. LENA1152 Keith AvenueBerkeley, California 94708-1607Telephone: (510) 665-1713Facsimile: (510) 588-5555E-mail: jlena@sbcglobal.net(Without waiver of defenses, jurisdictional or otherwise)

Attorney for Istituto per le Opere di Religione (IOR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMIL ALPERIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

VATICAN BANK, a/k/a INSTITUTE OFRELIGIOUS WORKS or ISTITUTO PER LEOPERE DI RELIGIONE (IOR), et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C 99-04941 MMC (EDL)

DECLARATION OF PROFESSORSETTIMIO CARMIGNANI CARIDI INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANT IOR’SMOTION TO DISMISS FOURTHAMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACKOF SUBJECT MATTERJURISDICTION

Date: July 28, 2006

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Court: The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney

I, Professor Settimio Carmignani Caridi, do hereby declare and state as follows:

Introduction

1. My name is Settimio Carmignani Caridi. I am a tenured Ricercatore (Researcher) and member

of the faculty of law at the Italian University of Rome, Tor Vergata. My business address is Settimio Caridi,

Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, Università di Roma Tor Vergata, Via Orazio Raimondo, 18,

00173, Rome, Italy.

2. As set forth below, this declaration is based upon my expert knowledge of civil law legal

systems, Italian law, canon law, ecclesiastical law, the constitutional law of the Holy See and the particular

laws of the State of Vatican City.

Case 3:99-cv-04941-MMC Document 273 Filed 03/20/2006 Page 1 of 20

28 Decl. of Settimio Carmignani Caridi in Supp. of IOR’s Mtn. to Dismiss 4th Amended Cmplt.

Alperin v. IOR, Case No. C 99-04941 MMC (EDL) 2

Qualifications and Professional Experience

3. I am trained and teach in the disciplines of canon law, ecclesiastical law, Italian law, and the

various laws that make up the legal system governed by the Holy See. I am familiar with all of the

international accords between Italy and the Holy See. I am familiar with the international law principles of

sovereign immunity and have studied on a sustained basis sovereign immunity cases in both the United States

and Italy. I study comparative law and conflict of laws. I am familiar with the differences between the civil

law and the common law. I am a licensed lawyer in good standing in Italy.

4. Italian is my native language. As a legal professional and scholar, I work primarily in Latin

and Italian, but I read and follow relevant scholarship written in English, French and Spanish.

Academic Degrees

5. In 1979, I graduated with honours from the Law Faculty of the Italian University of Rome,

La Sapienza, where I received a perfect examination score (High Honors) defending my ecclesiastical law

thesis titled “Relations between State and Church in Polish Democratic Republic” under the direction of

Professor of Ecclesiastical Law, Pietro Gismondi.

6. In 1982, I received my Licentia in Iure Canonico, magna cum laude (Canon Law License)

at Gregorian Pontifical University, where I submitted a canon law thesis related to the development of the

moral subject in the decisions of Sacra Congregazione del Concilio.

7. In 1987, I received my doctoral degree in canon and ecclesiastical law, for which I wrote a

dissertation on entities of the Roman Curia and State of Vatican City, “Criteri di distinzione tra organi ed

enti della Curia e dello S.C.V.”

Academic and Professional Activities

8. From 1980 until 1992, I worked at the Supreme Court of Cassation (Italian court of last resort

for non-constitutional matters) in a research group called the Giurinform Studio, assigned to analyze case

law for the Court. I also received funding research in the same period from the Consiglio Nazionale delle

Ricerche (National Research Council), attached to the Ministry of Education and Italian University Ministry

under the direction of Professors Gismondi, Ferrari, Mirabelli, Talmanca, Corecco, Mauro, Spinelli, Dalla

Torre, and Milano.

9. In 1982, I was awarded a three-year scholarship with stipend by the Catholic University

Centre by the Episcopal Conference of Italian Bishops, after which I received my doctorate from the Ministry

of Italian Universities.

10. In 1987, I won a public competition to become Researcher in canon law and ecclesiastical law

at the public University of Rome Tor Vergata, where I continue to teach.

11. For ten years, from November 21, 1991 to November 22, 2001, I served as Clerk on the

Italian Constitutional Court to the Honorable Justice Cesare Mirabelli, performing tasks similar to those

performed by clerks to Justices of the United States Supreme Court – research, writing, and preparation of

memoranda. After Professor Mirabelli was made Chief Justice, I also coordinated work for the assistant

clerks.

12. I am General Secretary of Consociatio Internationalis Studio Iuris Canonici Promovendo,

an international association of more than 500 canon law professors, mainly laymen, where my duties include

the responsiblity for the agenda for that organization’s triennial meetings.

13. I am a member of the board of editors for Quaderni di Diritto e Politica Ecclesiastica, a

journal of law and ecclesiastical politics.

14. I teach general law courses, as well as courses at the masters level and specialty courses, in

public administration, communications and legal information systems.

15. I am member of the Ordine degli Avvocati (the Italian public law register of attorneys), and

am admitted to practice before the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, the Italian Constitutional Court (court

with jurisdiction over constitutional questions), the Consiglio di Stato (court of administrative recourse from

first instance administrative law decisions), and the Corte dei Conti (court receiving challenges relating to

the accuracy of public accounts and expenditure).

Subject Matter of this Declaration

16. Based upon my expert knowledge of the legal systems applicable within the Holy See and

upon the territory of the State of Vatican City, defendant Istituto per le Opere di Religione (“IOR”) has

asked me to give my expert opinion on, principally, the legal status of the IOR in the year 1999.

Materials Reviewed to Make this Declaration

17. I am familiar with all of the leading scholarly publications relating to the Holy See, the

territory of the State of Vatican City, the canon law, Italian ecclesiastical law, and international law. All of

the materials I rely upon to make this declaration are publicly available, and are not based upon any special

access to documents or relation to any of the juridical subjects described herein. The most important materials

I have reviewed are the following:

The Fourth Amended Complaint in the case of Alperin v. Vatican Bank.

Costituzione Apostolica Pastor Bonus (June 28, 1988) 80 Acta Apostolica Sedis (“AAS”)841-930 (1988), in Commento alla Pastor Bonus e alle norme Sussidiarie della CuriaRomana, P. Pinto ed., Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editria Vaticana (2003) (“Pastor Bonus”).

Costituzione Apostolica Regimini Ecclesiae Universae (Aug. 15, 1967) 59 AAS 885-928(1967).

Codice di Diritto Canonico (Jan. 25, 1983), in Commento al Codice di Diritto Canonico, P.Pinto ed., Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editria Vaticana, (2001) (“1983 CODE”).

Trattato Laterano (Feb. 11, 1929) 6 AAS 209-271 (1929) (“Lateran Treaty”).

Legge Vaticana 26 novembre 2000, Legge fondamentale dello Stato della Citta’ delVaticano [Law of Nov. 26, 2000, Fundamental Law of the State of Vatican City], in forceas of Feb. 22, 2001.

Legge Vaticana 7 giugno 1929, n. II, Legge sulle fonti del Diritto.

Regolamento Generale della Curia Romana (Secretaria Status, Rescriptum ex AudientiaSS.MI quo Ordinatio generalis Romanae Curiae foras datur) (Apr. 30, 1999).

La Curia Romana: Lineamenti Storico Giuridici, Niccolo’ Del Re, Città del Vaticano,Libreria Editrice Vaticana (4th ed. 1998).

Il Diritto Amministrativo della Chiesa, Francesco D’Ostilio, Città del Vaticano, LibreriaEditrice Vaticana (2d ed. 1996).

Diritto dell’Organizzazione Ecclesiastica, Juan Ignacio Arieta, Milano, Giufrè Editore(1997).

Chirographum quo nova ordinatio datur Organismo Istituto per le Opere di Religione (Mar.1, 1990).

Adnexum Statuto, Istituto per le Opere di Religione (Annex to 1990 Chirograph of Mar. 1,1990).

Costituzioni Generali e Statuti Generali, Ordine Dei Frati Minori (Dec. 8, 2004) (“Cost. Gen.”).

Slavorum Gentem: Quibus extinguitur Capitulum Ecclesiae Collegiatae S. HieronymiIllyricorum et Collegium Hieronymianum in Urbe erigitur (Aug. 1, 1901).

Regolamento generale per il Vicariato di Roma (July 1, 2000).

Publications

18. I publish scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals on Italian law, canon law, the law of the

Holy See, international law, sovereignty, and representational capacity (agency). A partial list of my

publications is set forth in Attachment A to this declaration.

Introductory Notes

19. The following notations state important premises related to the contents of this declaration.

Note on the Importance of Reference to Latin Texts to Analyze Law

20. Latin is the official language of the Holy See, and legal texts of the first order are published

in Latin. These Latin texts are the authoritative source of law. For this reason, all translations relied upon

by a scholar must be compared to the original Latin text to determine the translation’s accuracy. With respect

to the documents whose authoritative texts are in Latin, I have made the necessary comparisons before

executing this declaration.

Legal Status of Expert Opinion

21. This declaration states my expert legal opinion. I am not an employee (dipendente) of the

Holy See and have no association with the IOR. Nor do I have any association with the Order of Friars

Minor, or the College of San Girolamo. This declaration is not an official statement of the Holy See or the

IOR, or any other entity. In the legal system of the Holy See, official statements of law are reserved to those

organs constitutionally empowered to make such statements.

Concept of Canon Law

22. Canon law, broadly construed, refers to that body of laws governing the legal relations of real

and fictitious persons in the canon law legal system, and describes the legal institutes that form that system.

The term does not simply refer to the “Code of Canon Law,” which provides the general structure for the

legal system within which “particular,” “special” and “constitutional” laws may also be elaborated. See, e.g.,

1983 CODE c.5 (Code of Canon Law in force suppresses prior codes, but allows creation of law interstitial

to the Code); 1983 CODE c.360 (stating that the Pope conducts affairs through the Roman Curia, which acts

in the name of and on behalf of the Pope, according to the norms of canon law and such particular laws as

may be enacted; the Roman Curia is composed of the Secretary of State and other Curial entities as

determined by statute and special laws); Pastor Bonus, passim (Papal constitution authorizing and describing

components of the Roman Curia); 1983 CODE c.455 (Episcopal Conferences elaborate their own norms,

subject to their compliance with the canon law); 1983 CODE c.598 (religious institutes establish activities

through their own constitutional structures). These laws are interpreted according to the hierarchical status

of the law, the principle of subsidiarity, the principles of statutory interpretation used in the legal system, and

the canon law’s received tradition. 1983 CODE c.6, § 2 .

Authority and Constitutional Expression in the Holy See's Legal System,and on the Territory of the State of Vatican City

23. The Holy See is a sovereign confessional state governed by canon law and constitutional law.

Its sovereignty is recognized by other states throughout the world, including the United States. The polticial

form of the state is a monarchy. See 1983 CODE c.331-335.

24. Although the Holy See’s power is concentrated in the figure of the monarch, it is organized

through a stable, cognizable and predictable legal system whose institutional instrument is the Roman Curia

and certain Vatican state institutions. 1983 CODE c.360; Pastor Bonus art. 2, et seq.; see also, Nuova Legge

Fondamentale dello Stato della Citta’ del Vaticano (26 Nov. 2000) (in effect Feb. 22, 2001) (stating the law

of the State of Vatican City currently in force, but making no change from the previous law relevant to this

declaration). The elaboration and exercise of this power adheres to the principle of legality: powers within

the Curia are based upon written documents and the division of authority into executive, legislative and

judicial functions, each maintaining legally mandated degrees of separation. Judicial officers cannot make

law, legislative officers cannot adjudicate cases, and executive officers generally exercise administrative rather

than legislative and judicial functions. The right to challenge administrative decisions (“recourses”) and appeal

judicial decisions include de novo review of issues of both fact and law. See Pastor Bonus, passim

(describing the modern configuration of executive, legislative and judicial institutions within the Curia and

the limitations on the competencies and jurisdiction of each); Del Re, Curia Romana 95-108 (describing

congregations of the Roman Curia); and D’Ostilio, Diritto Amministrativo, 157-163 (describing curial

organizations generally and limitations of competence of administrative agencies of the Roman Curia).

Juridic Persons

25. A general analogy between juridic persons in the civil law tradition and corporations in the

common law legal tradition may be useful. A “juridic person” is a “fictitious” rather than a “natural” person

and is similar to a “corporation” that is created for some particular purpose, as may be defined in the founding

documents and further elaborated in its “by-laws” describing the corporate structure and function. Like the

common law corporation, the juridic person is a legal mechanism through which organizations maintain a

separate identity, structure, purpose, and legal independence.

26. Juridic persons are also classified as either “public” or “private.”

27. In the canon law, a public juridic person is an entity that comes into existence either ipso iure

or is created by the specific grant of the competent authority. In either case, the entity’s legal purpose must

include a mandate to pursue canonically appropriate public good. Public juridic persons are subject to the

scrutiny of the creating authority, but act autonomously within the sphere of their competence, as defined

by the juridic person’s own statutes and the grant of authority. 1983 CODE c.114, § 1 (providing that juridic

persons may be created by a disposition of law, or by specific legal decree, by a competent authority and with

a purpose that corresponds with the mission of the competent authority). The Code specifies that a public

juridic person maintains a particularly close relationship to the competent authority that created it in order

the public juridic person can be supervised to ensure that the public good is pursued. See, e.g., 1983 CODE

c.116.

28. The separate status of juridic persons is maintained through the creation of autonomous

governing boards and regulations. This rule is uniform, but applied through different parts of the canon law,

depending upon the nature of the institution. See, e.g., 1983 CODE c.587 (institutes adopt “fundamental”

norms relative to their internal governance and the activities of its members); Regolamento generale per il

Vicariato di Roma, July 1, 2000 (setting forth regulations for the vicariate of Rome separate and distinct from

those applicable to the Roman Curia); 1983 CODE c.243 (religioius seminaries each adopt their own

regulations according to the competent authority); 1983 CODE c.454-455 (episcopal conferences may make

law not inconsistent with the Code of Canon Law); 1983 CODE c.573 (bishops are individually responsible

for the administration of their own dioceses).

29. The sovereign’s powers are divided into pastoral, spiritual and temporal spheres. Temporal

authority concerns the acquisition, retention, administration, and alienation of temporal goods. These powers

are exercised by the various juridic persons within the Church, independently of the competent authority that

created them, within the limits set by their founding statutes. Such canon law juridic persons are also typified

by separate legal representation, and the power to represent and vindicate the rights of the juridic entity.

30. Juridic persons are first classified into two basic categories: aggregates of persons

(universitates personarum) or of things (universitates rerum). 1983 CODE c.113. The competent authority

– here, the sovereign – may create either.

Legal Status of the IOR as of the Year 1999

31. The IOR is a public juridic person constituted by the authority of the sovereign in conformity

with the canon law, the law of the Holy See and the law of the the State of Vatican City. The legal status

of the IOR is described in both sovereign law and legal commentary. See, e.g., F. Finocchiaro, Diritto

ecclesiastico 179 (Bologna 1986) (general overview of ecclesiastical law describing IOR); S. Lariccia, Diritto

ecclesiastico 155 (3d ed. Padova 1986) (same); E. Vitali, L’istituto per le opere di religione e il diritto

italiano, in GIUR. COMM. 514-28 (1987); F. Margiotta Broglio, Enti centrali della chiesa e istituto per le

opere di religione. Considerazioni sull’interpretazione dell’art. 11 del Trattato Lateranense, in RIV. TRIM.

DIR. E PROC. CIV. 543-53 (1988); F. Finocchiaro, Enti centrali della chiesa cattolica, in XII ENC. GIUR.

TRECCANI 1-6; G. Dalla Torre, Santa Sede e Enti Centrali Della Chiesa, in XIII DIGESTO ITALIANO,

Discipline Pubblicistiche 589-598.

A chirograph is a traditionally handwritten instrument through which the Pontiff expresses his will.1

In the Holy See’s legal system, the papal chirograph is law.

“[T]he procedure for approval [of a juridic person’s statutes] implies and means a control, on the2

part of the administrative authority (in a position of preeminence and prevalence), of the activity carried outby another subject (in a position of subordination), for the ends and within the bounds fixed by law.” IExegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law 773 (Marzoa, et al. eds.).

Decl. of Settimio Carmignani Caridi in Supp. of IOR’s Mtn. to Dismiss 4th Amended Cmplt.

32. As the governing (“competent”) authority of the Holy See, the Pope authorizes the creation

of new juridic persons on Vatican City State territory. On March 1, 1990, Pope John Paul II issued a

chirograph (“Chirograph”) and internal governing regulations (“Statuto”) giving the IOR its present form1

as a public juridic person. See 82 AAS 1619-20 (Chirographum quo nova ordinatio datur Organismo

Istituto per le Opere di Religione (Chirograph)), 82 AAS 1621-29 (Adnexum Statuto, Istituto per le Opere

di Religione (Statuto)) (1990).

33. As demonstrated by the content of the Chirograph and the Statuto, the IOR was not created

by operation of a general law, and was not part of a general legislative scheme. Rather, it was created by and

is subject to a “special law” specifically directed at the IOR’s creation and organization, and commanding

the IOR to engage in activity of public benefit to the sovereign. Chirograph, Statuto, passim; Pastor Bonus

art. 25, § 2 (describing the IOR as an institute governed by “special law”). The sovereign was the original2

source of funds to establish and finance the operation of the IOR.

34. As a public juridic person with a mission defined by the sovereign, the IOR has the capacity

and obligation to serve the public purposes set forth in its authorizing legal instrument. See, e.g., Statuto art.

5 (providing that the IOR serve sovereign-mandated goals with oversight by a Commission of Cardinals

appointed by the sovereign).

35. While juridically separate from the sovereign, the IOR is a creature of the sovereign; it is

neither a citizen of the United States, nor it is created under the laws of any third country. See Italian

Supreme Court of Cassation, Section V, 17 July 1987, n.3932 (acknowledging location of IOR on Vatican

City State territory; its formation under the laws of the Holy See and the Vatican City State; and its immunity

from the jurisdiction of Italian courts).

36. The purpose of the IOR is to carry on activities that are pias causas, or for pious purposes,

consistent with the sovereign’s public purposes. See, e.g., Statuto, passim (internal governing regulations

of the IOR requiring it to act for pias causas, a Holy See public purpose). The IOR cannot change its rules

of internal governance without permission of and final approval by the sovereign. Chirograph (creating IOR

as a canon law juridic person, limiting its authority to public acts, and requiring that all changes to the

governing statute be made by the sovereign, not the entity itself).

37. The IOR’s public purpose is to “provide custody and administration of movables and

immovables transferred or entrusted to the same institute for the purpose of works of religion and charity.”

Statuto art. 2, § 1. In conformity with its purpose, “[t]he Institute therefore accepts assets whose destination

is at least in part or in the future that of the previous section. The Institute can accept deposits of assets from

entities or individuals of the Holy See or of the State of Vatican City.” Id. at § 2.

38. As a public juridic person, the Statuto authorizes the IOR to acts as a fiduciary of the

deposited funds for designated pious purposes, and as an autonomous pious foundation that directly carries

out the charitable purposes of the Holy See and the State of Vatican City.

39. Constitutional documents underscore the IOR’s central institutional relationship with the Holy

See, and its public purpose. Pastor Bonus art. 25, § 2, describes the IOR as that “special institute established

and located within the Vatican State for managing economic assets committed to it and for administering

those that serve to sustain works of religion and charity . . . .” Id. This constitutional status reflects the IOR’s

central role within the Holy See’s public law legal structure; indeed, authoritative IOR scholarship describes

the IOR as a Holy See “central entity.” See Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, Section V, 17 July 1987,

n.3932 (acknowledging that IOR is a “central entity” under the oversight of the Holy See, on Vatican City

Territory, and enjoying immunity from the jurisdiction of Italian criminal courts); see also, Statuto art. 3

(noting that the IOR must serve the Universal Church, subject to the oversight of the Holy See). The IOR’s

status has been recognized in bilateral treaties as well. See, e.g., L’Accordo Amministrativo per

l'Applicazione della Convenzione di Sicurezza Sociale tra La Santa Sede e La Repubblica Italiana (16 June

2000) (Agreement regarding the administration of social security between the Holy See and the Republic of

Italy, recognizing the IOR as “one of the entities directly overseen by the Holy See”).

Location of the IOR

40. The IOR is located in a government building within the State of Vatican City.

Organizational Structure of the IOR

41. The IOR has several administrative levels, each authorized and described by law. In order

from highest governmental oversight to daily operational responsibility, the levels are: (1) Cardinals'

Commission; (2) Prelate; (3) Oversight Council; (4) Directorate; and (5) Accounting.

42. Cardinals’ Commission. The Cardinals’ Commission is composed of five Cardinal Members,

each of whom is a government official holding high office within the Roman Curia, and each of whom is

appointed by the sovereign. This Commission forms the direct institutional link between the sovereign

government and the IOR. The Commission is headed by the Secretary of State of the Holy See, the Pope’s

highest delegate for temporal affairs of this nature.

43. The Commission meets, by law, at least twice annually to review the IOR’s compliance with

its internal statutory norms. The Commission also appoints and removes members of the Oversight Council

(whose function is discussed below) and appoints and removes the IOR’s President and Vice-President. In

addition, the Commission: (a) deliberates as to the distribution of any available funds; (b) proposes to the

sovereign changes to the by-laws; (c) deliberates regarding the emoluments due to the Members of the

Oversight Council; (d) approves the appointment and the removal of the Director and of the Vice-Director

made by the Oversight Council; and (e) deliberates on any issue regarding the Members of the Oversight

Council and the Directorate. In maintaining plenary oversight authority over the IOR, the Cardinals’

Commission is legally mandated to pursue governmentally goals, but is not legally mandated to be involved

in IOR day-to-day activities or transactions. See Pastor Bonus art. 25, § 2 (describing the duty of the

Dicasterial Council of Cardinals for the Study of Organization and Economic Questions of the Holy See to

“consider the activities of the [IOR]” in its administration of “economic goods placed in its care.”).

Government officials are empowered to request information and records from the IOR. Id.

44. Prelate. Below the Cardinals’ Commission sits the Prelato, or “Prelate.” The Prelate

oversees the activities of the IOR, acts as Secretary to the Cardinals’ Commission when it is in session,

attends the meetings of the Oversight Council, and provides an institutional link between the Cardinals’

Commission and the Oversight Council.

45. Oversight Council. The Oversight Council administers and manages the IOR, and supervises

its financial, economic and operative activities. The Oversight Council is convened by the President at least

once every three months, or when requested by two of its Members, and approves the IOR’s operational

budget, submitted by the the Directorate, each year. After approval, the Oversight Council transmits the

budget to the Commission, with a report on the IOR’s economic-financial situation and on how the activity

of the IOR complies with its bylaws. In addition, the Oversight Council: (a) formulates the general policy

lines and basic strategy for the activities of the IOR in harmony with its institutional ends; (b) defines the

criteria for the elaboration of yearly programs and objectives of the Directorate, and to approve its proposals;

(c) reviews the economic-financial activity of the IOR; (d) watches over the realization of programs and the

objectives that were set, with respect to investments and other activities; (e) defines the most appropriate

financial structure for the IOR and, in general, determines the best means to increase the IOR’s patrimony

and assets in the context of adherence to economic-financial rules and in compliance with the purposes of

the IOR; (f) proposes to the Commission changes in the by-laws, as long as they are unanimously approved

by Council staff; (g) arranges for issuance of the regulations, which are required to provide a detailed

description of the powers and competencies of the Council and the Directorate General; (h) confers with the

Directorate; and (i) approves the Directorate’s annual report.

46. Directorate. Below the Oversight Council is the Directorate, which consists of a Director

General and the Vice-Director. The members of the Directorate are appointed by the Oversight Council

subject to the approval of the Cardinals’ Commission. The Directorate is responsible for the operational

activities of the IOR.

47. This relationship between the Cardinals’ Commission, the Prelate, the Oversight Council, and

the Directorate is set forth in the Chirograph and the Statuto articulating the rules of IOR internal

governance. According to the Chirograph and the Statuto, the IOR is a public juridic person, which can

contract and own property in its own name and which has its own legal representative, as specified by statute.

48. Auditors. Auditors operate under the Directorate and are officers of the IOR under the terms

of the Chirograph and Statuto, charged with monitoring the IOR’s activities.

Function of the IOR

49. The IOR performs functions which are unique and not performed by other organs or

institutions of the Holy See or the State of Vatican City. Compare, e.g., Pastor Bonus art. 25, § 2 (describing

IOR as “special institute for managing economic assets placed in its care with the purpose of supporting

works of religion and charity”) with Pastor Bonus arts. 172 -175 (describing the functions of the

Amministrazione del Patrimonio della Sede Apostolica as an administrator of properties owned by the Holy

See to fund the Roman Curia, overseen through a different administration, activities which are distinct from

the IOR) and with Pastor Bonus arts.176-179 (describing, inter alia, the Prefettura per gli Affari Economici

as supervising and governing the temporal goods of the administrations that are dependent on the Holy See

and reviewing reports on the patrimonial and economic status of the Holy See, all activities distinct from the

50. The IOR statute authorizes functions on the territory of the Holy See to facilitate the

operation of government. Statuto art. 2. While the day-to-day operations of the IOR are by law managed

by the IOR itself, as a public juridic person, the IOR is legally required to follow governmental policy

directives articulated through the Cardinals’ Commission. Statuto art. 8.

51. The IOR routes payments between certain Holy See agencies, a public function performed

for these tasks by no other entity on behalf of the Holy See. The IOR also finances Holy See religious works.

Pastor Bonus art. 25, § 2.

52. The IOR is legally empowered to operate the Holy See pension (“social security”) system for

its own employees, as well as all the other employees of the Holy See. See, L’Accordo Amministrativo per

l'Applicazione della Convenzione di Sicurezza Sociale tra La Santa Sede e La Repubblica Italiana (16 June

2000) (Administrative Accord for the Application of the Convention regarding Social Security between the

Holy See and the Republic of Italy, recognizing the IOR as “one of the entities directly overseen by the Holy

See” and its role in the sovereign’s pension system).

53. The IOR performs a direct and public service function (funzione di servizio) for the Holy See.

The IOR’s founding documents do not authorize the retention of profit by the IOR.

54. By the terms of its founding documents and Pastor Bonus, the IOR carries out its activities

to promote sovereign goals. Pastor Bonus art. 25, § 2 (“economic goods placed in [IOR’s] care with the

purpose of supporting works of religion and charity.”); Statuto art. 2

55. The IOR is a limited depository institution. Depositors are essentially limited to Holy See

employees, members of the Holy See, religious orders, and persons who deposit money destined in whole

or in part for works of piety. Statuto art. 2

56. As a creature of the sovereign in the canonical system, where legal requirements are met, the

IOR could be wound up, or rededicated to other government purposes by legal act of the sovereign. See,

e.g. 1983 CODE c.120, § 1 (stating comptent authority’s power to suppress a public juridic person); and 1983

CODE c.121 (stating competent authority’s power to cause the merger of one juridic person with another).

“Ownership” of the IOR

57. Paragraph 31 of Fourth Amended Complaint states that the IOR is “in fact the personal

property of the Pope.” Plaintiffs “contend” that the IOR “is in fact the personal property of the Pope in his

position as the ecclesiastical head of the Roman Catholic Church and its Easter Rites along with other non

sovereign shareholders.” Fourth Amended Complaint ¶ 31. As a matter of applicable law, this statement is

incorrect. Like every separate juridic person in the canon law system, the IOR cannot be the property of

another. See, Statuto (IOR has canonical juridical personality). It may be that plaintiffs’ confusion arises

from application of certain generalized common law concepts such as “stakeholder,” “shareholder,”

“associate” or “partner.” These terms are simply legally inapplicable to this entity. To the extent that

plaintiffs are contending that the Pope has a property right in any deposits by either natural or juridic persons

in the IOR, the statement is similarly invalid as a matter of applicable law. Autonomous entities within the

Church possess the right to acquire and use property. 1983 CODE c.1255 (stating that the all juridic person,

whether public or private can acquire, retain, administer, or alienate temporal goods according to legal right).

While the sovereign, as creator of a juridic person, may suppress it, or change its form, the sovereign – much

less the Pope in some “personal” capacity – cannot simply deprive the autonomous juridic person of its

canonical rights to the temporal goods it has acquired. 1983 CODE c.1256 ( “The right of ownership over

goods under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff belongs to that juridic person which has lawfully

acquired them.”) As commentaries on the canon law make clear, canon 1256 restated the fundamental

canonical principle nemo iure suo sine culpa (No one may be deprived of a right absent fault), and stands for

the principle that no person – even the Pope – can lawfully deprive another of temporal goods legitimately

acquired.

Juridic Status of the Order of Friars Minor

58. The Order of Friars Minor is a religious Order subdivided into separate juridic persons.

Amongst these juridic persons are the entities which serve particular territories (Provincali) and the General

Headquarters (Generale). Each member of the Order is associated with a particular House within a Province

(Locale). Each of the above is recognized as separate juridic persons in the canon law.

59. Each of these separate juridic persons may acquire, administer, alienate, and use temporal

goods independently, in accordance with universal law and the proper law of the Order. Cost. Gen. art. 244.

60. The General Chapter is governed by the constitutions and the general statutes, within the

canon law framework. Cost. Gen. art. 188. Officers of the General Chapter cannot contemporaneously serve

as officers of a Province. Cost. Gen. art. 179. The Provincial Minister, and other Province Officers, head

each juridically separate Province. Cost. Gen. art. 179. The General Chapter, each Province, and each House

appoints a legal representative for dealings with civil authorities. Cost. Gen. art. 246.

61. For those with legal seat in Italy, these separate juridic persons are also recognized in Italian

law ipso iure in view of their canonical status, and accordingly appear in public registers of juridic persons.

The OFM Headquarters, located in Rome, is not on Vatican City State territory, or on any extraterritorial

holdings of the Holy See. Trattato Laterano arts. 13-16 and Attachment II. The General Chapter and each

Provincial Chapter are juridic persons separate from the Holy See. With respect to the OFM Headquarters

(House located in Rome), in Italian law, the separate juridic status during the relevant period is established

by decree of the Kingdom of Italy, dated June 13, 1935, and registered in the Court of Accounts on August

5, 1935, Register No. 365F n. 23-f. As a Royal Decree, this declaration has the force of positive public law

(not merely private declaration by the juridic person itself) and cannot be challenged. See also, Italian

Supreme Court of Cassation, Civil Section, Dec. 6, 2002, n.5458 (in action to hold Province liable for

conduct of a House, both of which were recognized as separate juridic persons, Italian Supreme Court of

Cassation held no civil responsibility of Province for actions of House.)

Juridic Status of the College of San Girolamo

62. The College of San Girolamo merits comment, in light of the legally imprecise manner in

which it is referred to in the Fourth Amended Complaint. The College of San Girolamo is a separate juridical

entity, Universitates Personarum, recognized in both canon law and Italian law and is, ipso iure, legally

autonomous from the Holy See, the IOR, and the OFM. The College has not been part of the Roman Curia,

Pastor Bonus, passim; is not located on the territory of the Vatican City State, or territory having Holy See

extraterritorial status under the Lateran Treaty, Trattato Laterano arts. 13-16 and Attachment II; and has

been considered a subject of Italy since at least 1924. Accord del 27 gennaio 1924, in 45 Gazzetta Ufficiale

889-903 (22 Feb.1924); art. 1, Law of 20 May 1985, n.222, in 129 Gazzetta Ufficiale (3 June1985); Il

Ministro del Interno, Decreto (Nov. 16, 1987).

ATTACHMENT A

Encyclopedia Entries

Rappresentanza in generale. Diritto canonico, in Enciclopedia del diritto, Milano, Giuffrè,1987, vol. XXXVIII, pp.485 ss.

Sodalizi, in Enciclopedia del diritto, Milano, Giuffrè, 1990, vol. XLII, pp. 1205 ss.

Ufficio del lavoro della Sede Apostolica (ULSA), in Enciclopedia giuridica, Roma, Istitutodella Enciclopedia Italiana (Treccani), 1994, pp. 1-8.

Collected Works and Professional Organization Publications

L'esperienza dei "Gruppi Giurinform" e la collaborazione degli ambienti universitari eprofessionali alla formazione degli archivi elettronici di giurisprudenza di merito, in 3/Congresso internazionale sul tema "L'informatica giuridica e le comunità nazionali edinternazionali", Roma, 9-14 maggio 1983, Corte Suprema di Cassazione - Centro elettronicodi documentazione, Sess. VI, n. 4, pp. 1-11.

Sviluppo, competenze e strutture del Pontificium Consilium pro laicis, in Studi in memoriadi Pietro Gismondi, Milano, Giuffrè, 1987, vol. I, pp. 255 ss.

Il "documento canonico". Peculiarità, difficoltà ed esperienze nella massimazione dipronunzie giurisprudenziali emesse da tribunali della Chiesa Cattolica, in 4/ Congressointernazionale sul tema "Informatica e regolamentazioni giuridiche", Roma, 16-21 maggio1988, Corte Suprema di Cassazione - Centro elettronico di documentazione, Sess. II, n. 13

I vecchi "Sodalizi in senso stretto" ed il nuovo CIC, in Proceedings of the Sixth InternationalCongress of Canon Law, München, 14-19 September 1987, Aymans-Geringer-Schmitz (eds.),St. Ottilien, 1989, pp.621 ss.

Libertà di abbigliamento e velo islamico, in AA.VV., Musulmani in Italia: La condizionegiuridica delle comunità islamiche a cura di Silvio Ferrari, Il Mulino (Prismi), Bologna, 2000,pp. 223–234

Significato e portata dell’art. 11 del Trattato lateranense, in Radio Vaticana e ordinamentoitaliano, a cura di Giuseppe Dalla Torre e Cesare Mirabelli, Giappichelli, Torino, 2005, pp.1-23.

Contributions to the Annual of the Department of Public Law,University of Rome, II Tor Vergata

The reform of the Vatican judiciary system, in University of Rome II. Department of PublicLaw. Yearbook, Napoli, Editoriale Scientifica, 1988, pp. 217 ss.

The relevance of the dialogue between doctrine and jurisprudence in Canon Law, inUniversity of Rome II. Department of Public Law. Yearbook, Napoli, Editoriale Scientifica,1989, pp. 245 ss.

Articles Published in the Journal Il diritto di famiglia e delle persone

Primi orientamenti espressi dalla Corti d'appello in tema di esecutorietà di sentenzeecclesiastiche di nullità matrimoniale, 1982, pp. 891 e ss.

Ulteriori orientamenti giurisprudenziali in tema di esecutorietà di sentenze matrimonialicanoniche, 1982, pp.1481 e ss.

La Corte di Cassazione sull'adozione internazionale, 1982, pp. 1222 ss.

La Corte di Cassazione ed il problema del rito da seguirsi nel procedimenti d'esecutorietàdi sentenze matrimoniali canoniche, 1983, pp. 521 ss.

La Corte di cassazione e l'estensibilità del trattamento economico spettante alle lavoratricimadri adottanti o affidatarie in una fattispecie anteriore alla legge n. 903/1977, 1984, pp.497 ss.

Articles published in the Journal Archivio giuridico Filippo Serafini

Sviluppo, competenze e strutture del Pontificium Consilium pro Laicis, 1985, pp. 497 ss.

Il nuovo Codice di diritto canonico. Sintesi del V/ Congreso internazionale di dirittocanonico (Ottawa 19/26 agosto 1984), 1986, pp.177 ss.

Articles published in the journal Il diritto ecclesiastico

Il V/ Congresso internazionale di diritto canonico su"Il nuovo Codice di diritto canonico"(Ottawa 19-26 agosto 1984): sintesi dei lavori, 1985, I, pp. 267 ss.

Rassegna della giurisprudenza della Suprema Corte di Cassazione del 1983 in materia diassistenza e beneficenza "pubblica" e "privata", 1985, II, pp. 216 ss.

Curia romana e Stato della Città del vaticano. Criteri di individuazione dei rispettivi enti,

1988, I, 139 ss.

L'error personae vel qualitatis personae nella giurisprudenza rotale (1983-1990), 1991, II,pp. 105 ss.

Articles published in the journal Quaderni di diritto e politica ecclesiastica

Giurisdizione italiana ed enti centrali della Chiesa: la Radio Vaticana ed il limite alleemissioni elettromagnetiche, in Quaderni di diritto e politica ecclesiastica, 2002, fasc. 3, pp.969-993

Thesis Submitted in Jurisprudence

Rapporti tra Stato e Chiesa nella Repubblica Popolare Polacca, Università degli studi diRoma [ora Università di Roma "La Sapienza"], a.a. 1978-1979.

Thesis Submitted for Doctoral Degrees in Canon and Ecclesiastical Law

Criteri di distinzione tra organi ed enti della Curia e dello S.C.V., Roma, aprile 1987 [dep.B.N.I. di Roma e Firenze]

BRIMSTONE& CO.JONATHAN LEVY

1629 K STREET Nvtf SUITE 3OO

I:#XT|;;:;,Til?cHAM BERs@ an I usroN EAN DcoM PANY'coM

September 21,2012

European CommissionDireitorate General for Economic and Financial AffairsFinancial Stability & Monetary AffairsFinancial Institutions & Financial StabilityHead of Unit - Mr. Benjamin AngelB-1049 Brussels, Belgium

Via Email and Mail

In re: (Vatican) Autorita di Informazione Finanziaria (AIF) & Eu^/atican

Monetary Agreement and European Commission - Our Letter of May 28,

Dear Mr. Angel:

We are patiently awaiting the Commission's response to oru

communication of -tf{ay

28,z}lzattached wherein we explain and provide

documentary evidenc. tt ut the Isfiruto per le Opery di Religione has been

misclassifi.b Uy the Commission as outside the jurisdiction of Directive

2OO5|60/EC because it belongs to the Holy See and not the Vatican City

State when in fact it is a juridic entity of the Vatican City state'

Sincerely,

Dr. Jonathan Levy '///t/trrtttrrrr\r\"'

Afforney and Solicitor for Holocaust Survivors and Organizations:

William DorictU Vojislav Poduda, Independent Council of Serbian Roma,

Republik Srpska Krajina in Exile et al'

Attachments via email only

Vatican EU Case

Documents

vatican city

EU Privacy Case

Vatican Roma

Vatican Catalogue

Case Study Vatican II

Scholia non serviana, Lactantius Placidus, the Vatican ......1 Scholia non serviana, Lactantius Placidus, the Vatican Mythographers and mythological lore: A case study of Montpellier,

Vatican Gardens

Vatican Radio Asia Newsletter - abbey-mariapia.netabbey-mariapia.net/files/Vatican-Radio-Newsletter-January-31-2014.pdf · Vatican Radio Asia Newsletter Vatican Radio, Indian Section,

Vatican Library

Vatican II

Vatican empire

Vatican III?

Vatican (2)

The Vatican

Vatican -Rome

Vatican Radio Asia Newsletter - Libero.itspazioinwind.libero.it/finalpia/files/Vatican-Radio... · 2014-05-02 · Vatican Radio Asia Newsletter Vatican Radio, Indian Section, Palazzo

The Vatican

Vatican & Islam

THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. 2 ND VATICAN COUNCIL Vatican Council, Second, more commonly known as Vatican II. From 1962-1965, the 21 st ecumenical council

Pacifica Vatican II and the history of Vatican II - Vatican... · Vatican II and the history of Vatican II Alberto ... task of discerning the Council’s meaning and sig ... lia do