BRUSSELS: The European Commission has asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to decide if the former commissioner, Ms Edith Cresson, abused her position by awarding dubious research contracts to a French company and to her dentist. The Commission said yesterday that there was a prime facie case of "favouritism" and "gross negligence" against Ms Cresson, who was the Education and Research commissioner from 1995 to 1999.
The Commission's move, which is unprecedented, could lead to Ms Cresson being deprived of all or part of her generous EU pension benefits. It follows the decision of a Belgian court last month to throw out corruption charges against her, on the grounds that the allegations were political in nature.
Ms Cresson has always denied any wrongdoing in contracts worth €150,000 she awarded to her dentist, Mr René Bertholet and business given by her department to a French company. She described the allegations, first aired by a Commission employee, Mr Paul Van Buitenen, as "gossip" whipped up in an air of hysteria.
Mr Van Buitenen, who is Dutch, was elected to the European Parliament last month.
The allegations against Ms Cresson were part of a dossier of corruption charges against the Commission under Mr Jacques Santer.
An independent inquiry by five 'wise men' cleared all the commissioners, some of whom are still serving in the current executive, of personal wrongdoing. But it said the Commission lacked political responsibility, and the executive collectively resigned.
The current Commission interviewed Ms Cresson for an hour last month before deciding yesterday to refer the case to the ECJ, the EU's highest court. Following her interview with the Commission, Ms Cresson compared her experience in dealing with the allegations with events in the novels of Franz Kafka.
The court will determine if Ms Cresson was in breach of Article 213 of the EU Treaty, which says that commissioners must be entirely independent in the conduct of their duties and refrain from any action incompatible with their duties.
"In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may . . . rule that the Member concerned be . . . either compulsorily retired . . . or deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead," the article says.