EU Law Blog

Edith Cresson’s actions as a Commissioner are being considered before the ECJ because the Commission is claiming that she should be deprived of her pension rights for breaches of duty under Art. 213 of the Treaty. Advocate General Geelhoed (whose food supplements opinion we just read) has concluded that she did breach her duties:

the Advocate General stresses that the various facts are symptomatic of a basic attitude indicating that she was willing, whilst in office as a Member of the Commission, to use that office to extend benefits to personal friends at the expense of the Community budget. He therefore concludes that Mrs Cresson is correctly accused of favouritism by the Commission, in breach of her obligations as a Commissioner.
As a result of this breach of obligations Advocate General Geelhoed states that a pecuniary sanction is appropriate. In his opinion, whilst the severity of the charges against Mrs Cresson warrant a full deprivation of pension rights a number of factors, including the lapse of time between her leaving office and proceedings being brought, the damage which has already occurred to her reputation and the general administrative culture in the Commission at the time mitigate against such a severe sanction. As a consequence of this he suggests that the Court deprive Mrs Cresson of 50% of her pension rights as of the date of the Court judgment.