Did the former director of the Coque get an additional pension of 44,000 Euro, although he was not entitled to it? This, in any case, is the opinion of the Court of Auditors in its report on public establishments. Concerned here is one person's transition from the status of a civil servant to that of an employee, and back again.
This is the story of a government editor who took an unpaid leave in 2001, to become an employee manager of the Coque, earning more than a civil servant. After the reached the maximum duration of his leave without pay, he then decided to return to his career as a civil servant. However, in order to avoid financial losses, the Coque's board of directors decided to pay him the difference as a "differential supplement". A decision that was approved by the corresponding minister at the time.
In 2013, the Budget Control Commission also considered this supplement to be justified. A substantial salary was justified when one assumed an office with as many responsibilities as that of director of the Coque.
When the director in question retired, it appeared that the contributions to the Pension Fund had been calculated on his salary as an editor and not on his earnings as a whole. To compensate for the difference, they then decided to pay him the equivalent of what the employer would have had to pay into the pension fund.
And this is precisely what does not suit the Court of Auditors. The Coque argues that this higher pension was the consequence of the 2009 decision to grant the employee an additional salary, approved by the minister at the time.
No decision has yet been taken in this case, but the deputies of the Budget Control Commission were a priori of the opinion that one cannot go and pick the best of each of both systems.
