Skip to main content
European Commission logo print header

Article Category

News
Content archived on 2022-12-02

Article available in the following languages:

President Santer defends Commissioners over resignation

The day after the resignation of the Members of the European Commission in response to the First Report of the Committee of Independent Experts appointed by the European Parliament, President Jacques Santer took the opportunity to say a few things on the Commission's behalf. ...

The day after the resignation of the Members of the European Commission in response to the First Report of the Committee of Independent Experts appointed by the European Parliament, President Jacques Santer took the opportunity to say a few things on the Commission's behalf. "The report considers a small number of specific cases which have recently attracted criticism from the European Parliament," he said. "The cases are analyzed in great detail and, while the findings reveal certain malfunctions and one instance of favouritism, I would point out that there is no suggestion that any Member of the Commission was involved in fraud or corruption or stood to gain personally. "I note that on the basis of a tiny number of cases of fraud and malfunctioning, which did indeed merit criticism, the Committee's report paints a picture of total absence of responsibility on the part of the institution and its officials. This picture is distorted. I consider the tone of the report's conclusions to be wholly unjustified. "I do not accept that four years of work, during which this Commission has achieved its full policy programme, can be reduced to six cases of irregularities, four of which date back to before 1995. I would also have hoped that the Committee of Independent Experts might have attached appropriate significance to the very substantial reforms carried out by this Commission since 1995 and the ambitious programme announced to Parliament last January. "The Commission's decision yesterday (15 March 1999) was a political act. We have taken our responsibilities, even if we judge the report to be unbalanced. Sometimes criticism can be salutory; we must use this crisis as a catalyst for deep and lasting reform in all the European institutions. I am hopeful that this crisis will help to reestablish the smooth functioning of the institutions. "I have informed the President of the European Council of the decision taken yesterday. I pointed out to him that, in line with the Treaties, we will continue to perform our functions until our replacement is provided for under the relevant procedures," said President Santer. The instance of favouritism to which President Santer referred concerned the links between Commissioner Edith Cresson, Member for Research, Innovation, Education, Training and Youth, and Mr Bertholet. The Committee of Independent Experts explained that Commissioner Cresson wished to make use of Mr Bertholet's skills at the Commission, particularly in the preparation of the Fifth Framework Programme (FP5) for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration (RTD), at a time when he was a long-standing friend of hers. Mr Bertholet obtained two contracts with the Commission: - DG XII (1 September 1995 - 28 February 1997); - Joint Research Centre (1 March 1997 - 31 December 1997). After explaining Mr Berthelot's role in these contracts, the Committee of Independent Experts set out the objective grounds for complaint about his recruitment by the Commission, and concluded: "In sum, the two contracts are irregular because they lack a legal basis, so that Mr Berthelot's applications ought to have been declared inadmissible." The Committee of Independent Experts also found that: - The duration of the contracts was too long; - It was highly unlikely that his missions to Châtellerault in France (where Commissioner Cresson was Mayor) could be justified in the interests of the Commission; - He had failed to produce a minimum quantity of work. The Committee of Independent Experts concluded that this was a clear-cut case of favouritism. "A person whose qualifications did not correspond to the various posts to which he was recruited was nonetheless employed. The work performed was manifestly deficient in terms of quantity, quality and relevance. The Community did not get value for money. "Moreover, the person recruited worked mainly as a personal staff member of the Commissioner, and there are very strong grounds for believing that he was often used in a manner which had little to do with the Commissioner's work on behalf of Europe. "The competent administrative authorities signed the contracts, and Financial Control approved them beforehand. Despite the lack of a legal basis, it seems that there were no hesitations on their part. "Compliance with formal requirements does not exonerate the beneficiaries of their responsibility, whether it be the employer (Mrs Cresson) or the employee (Mr Berthelot). Quite the opposite: as he was a friend of hers, Mrs Cresson, as a Commissioner, ought to have exercised heightened vigilance throughout this affair," concluded the Committee of Independent Experts.

Related articles