CELEX: C2004/300/64
Language: en
Date: 2004-12-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-432/04: Action brought on 7 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against Edith Cresson

4.12.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 300/34
            
         Action brought on 7 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against Edith Cresson
   (Case C-432/04)
   (2004/C 300/64)
   An action against Edith Cresson was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hans Peter Hartvig and Julian Currall, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:
   
               1.
            
            
               declare that Edith Cresson has failed to comply with her obligations under Article 213 EC;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               consequently, order the forfeiture in part or in whole of Mrs Cresson's pension rights and/or any other benefits linked to those rights or standing in their stead, the Commission leaving it to the discretion of the Court to determine the duration and extent of that forfeiture;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               order Mrs Cresson to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   During her term of office as a Member of the Commission, Mrs Cresson engaged in acts of favouritism for the benefit of two personal friends, contrary to the public interest and to her obligations under Article 213 EC. One of them was recruited on the initiative of Mrs Cresson although his profile did not correspond to the various posts to which he was recruited. Protection by Mrs Cresson then became apparent on several occasions even though the work he performed was manifestly inadequate in quality, quantity and relevance. Similarly, again on the initiative of Mrs Cresson, contracts were offered to another of her friends, without corresponding to a request or requirement of the Commission. Mrs Cresson's conduct was not dictated by the interests of the institution but was motivated essentially by the wish to do a favour for those two persons. At the very least, Mrs Cresson did not at any time make inquiries as to the correctness of the decisions made or procedures applied, although such a check was necessary in the case of persons with whom she had relations of friendship. That behaviour thus appears to constitute an act of favouritism or at the least obvious negligence.