7/30/2019 Edith Cresson

1/1November 2006 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/arrets/04c432_en.pdf

C-432/04 - Commission v Edith Cresson, judgment of 11.7.2006Institutional domain Obligations of Members of the Commission / Article213 procedure

Ms Cresson, Member of the Commission from 1995 to 1999, had expressed a wish toappoint a close acquaintance as her personal adviser. Since this person could not be

engaged as a member of her Cabinet, he was taken on as a visiting scientist. Althoughattachment as a visiting scientist implies that the person concerned is mainly to workeither in the JRC or in the services dealing with research, Mr Berthelot workedexclusively as a personal adviser to Ms Cresson.

The Commission considered that the Commissioners behaviour in this respect couldconstitute a breach of her obligations under Article 213(2) of the EC Treaty and

decided to bring the proceedings provided for in this Article and refer the matter to theCourt. This is the first time that the Court has given its opinion on this provision.

The Court recalled the main obligations which the Treaty places on Members of theCommission.

In particular the concept of the obligations arising from their office must be broadlyconstrued. Having regard to the importance of the responsibilities assigned to them, itis important that the Members of the Commission observe the highest standards of

conduct. It is therefore their duty to ensure that the general interest of the Communitytakes precedence at all times, not only over national interests, but also over personalinterests. The Court took care to point out that, while Members of the Commission are

under an obligation to conduct themselves in a manner which is beyond reproach, itdoes not, however, follow that the slightest deviation from those standards falls to be

censured under Article 213(2) EC. A breach of a certain degree of gravity is required.

In this case, the Court stated that obtaining the appointment of a person as a scientificvisitor in order to in fact act as a personal adviser, when this person could not berecruited in this capacity, constitutes a circumvention of the rules relating to the

appointment of the members of a Cabinet and to the appointment of scientific visitors.Having regard to her personal involvement in that appointment, Ms Cresson must beheld responsible for that appointment and for the circumvention of the rules which it

involved.

The Court did not order a financial sanction, considering that the finding of breach

constituted, of itself, an appropriate penalty.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62004J0432:EN:NOThttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62004J0432:EN:NOThttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62004J0432:EN:NOT