61980CJ0034_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 34/80
XAVIER AUTHIE, A GRADUATE IN ECONOMICS, RESIDENT IN PARIS, REPRESENTED BY MARCEL SLUSNY OF THE BRUSSELS BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ERNEST ARENDT, 34 RUE PHILIPPE II,
APPLICANT,
V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY RAYMOND BAEYENS, PRINCIPAL LEGAL ADVISER, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER, MARIO CERVINO, JEAN MONNET BUILDING, KIRCHBERG,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE SELECTION BOARD FOR COMPETITION COM/A/154 REFUSING TO ADMIT MR . AUTHIE TO THE TESTS AND AS FAR AS MAY BE NECESSARY OF THE REJECTION BY THE COMMISSION OF THE COMPLAINT MADE AGAINST THAT DECISION,
Grounds
1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 25 JANUARY 1980 MR AUTHIE BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF A DECISION OF THE SELECTION BOARD IN COMPETITION COM/A/154 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL, C 213, P . 9 ) REFUSING TO ADMIT HIM TO THE TESTS .
2 IT SHOULD BE RECALLED THAT THE APPLICANT TOOK PART IN THIS COMPETITION HELD TO CONSTITUTE A RESERVE OF ADMINISTRATORS FOR CATEGORY A 7/A 6 IN 1977 . SINCE HE WAS NOT AT THAT TIME INCLUDED ON THE LIST OF CANDIDATES ADMITTED TO THE WRITTEN TESTS HE BROUGHT AN ACTION AS A RESULT OF WHICH HE OBTAINED BY JUDGMENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF 30 NOVEMBER 1980 ( SALERNO, AUTHIE AND MASSANGIOLI V COMMISSION, JOINED CASES 4, 19 AND 28/78, ( 1978 ) ECR 2403 ) THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE SELECTION BOARD ON TWO GROUNDS : THE LACK OF SUFFICIENT SUPERVISION BY THE SELECTION BOARD OVER THE ACTIVITIES OF EXAMINERS WHO HAD ASSISTED THE BOARD BECAUSE OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES, AND THE EXCESSIVE SUCCINCTNESS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH THE DISPUTED DECISION WAS BASED .
3 AS A RESULT OF THE COURT ' S JUDGMENT THE SELECTION BOARD FOR THE COMPETITION REVIEWED THE APPLICANT ' S FILE AND AT ITS MEETING ON 9 JANUARY 1979 CONFIRMED ITS PREVIOUS DECISION . THAT NEW DECISION WAS COMMUNICATED IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS TO THE APPLICANT BY LETTER DATED 15 JANUARY 1979 :
' ' BY JUDGMENT GIVEN IN JOINED CASES 4, 19 AND 28/78 ON 30 NOVEMBER 1978, THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ANNULLED THE DECISION WHICH WAS COMMUNICATED TO YOU BY LETTER DATED 5 DECEMBER 1977 CONCERNING THE REFUSAL TO ADMIT YOU TO THE WRITTEN TESTS FOR COMPETITION COM/A/154 .
I AM TO INFORM YOU THAT THE SELECTION BOARD MET ON 9 JANUARY 1979 AND TOOK THE FOLLOWING DECISION IN YOUR REGARD :
MR X . AUTHIE CHOSE THE FIELD ' EXTERNAL RELATIONS ' . HE DECLARED THAT HE :
( I ) HAD OBTAINED A DEGREE IN ECONOMICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ORLEANS ON 29 JUNE 1973 AND A CERTIFICATE OF ADVANCED EUROPEAN STUDIES WITH SPECIALIZATION IN ECONOMICS, CLASS B, AWARDED BY THE COLLEGE OF EUROPE ON 27 MAY 1977 ;
( II)HAD FOLLOWED THE SECOND YEAR OF STUDIES OF THE INSTITUT D ' ETUDES POLITIQUES, PARIS, ( 1974/75 ).
THE APPLICANT HAS MOREOVER BEEN ADMITTED TO CARRY OUT A PERIOD OF TRAINING WITHIN THE COMMISSION AS FROM 16 SEPTEMBER 1977 . THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE CANDIDATE ' S FILE SHOWS THAT MR AUTHIE ' S UNIVERSITY STUDIES ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE FIELD OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS IN RESPECT OF OPEN COMPETITION COM/A/154 INASMUCH AS THEY DEMONSTRATE KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED ESSENTIALLY IN ECONOMICS WITH A SPECIALIZATION IN ECONOMETRICS . ' '
4 ON 13 APRIL 1979 THE APPLICANT MADE A COMPLAINT TO THE COMMISSION SIGNED BY HIS COUNSEL, UNDER ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . BY LETTER DATED 23 OCTOBER 1979 THE RESPONSIBLE MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION CONFIRMED THE REASON FOR THE REFUSAL TO THE APPLICANT AND OBSERVED IN CONCLUSION THAT ' ' THE COMMISSION HAS OF COURSE NO POWER TO SET ASIDE OR TO AMEND THE DECISION OF THE SELECTION BOARD FOR A COMPETITION ' ' .
5 THE APPLICATION IS MADE BOTH AGAINST THAT LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION AND THE DECISION OF THE SELECTION BOARD .
ADMISSIBILITY
6 THE COMMISSION HAS CONTENDED THAT THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT MADE, WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE SELECTION BOARD - WHICH IS THE ONLY ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE - BUT ONLY AGAINST A LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION EXPLAINING A DECISION WHICH THE COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO AMEND BECAUSE OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE SELECTION BOARD . THE COMMISSION ' S AGENT HAS,
HOWEVER, LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS THIS OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY .
7 THE COMMISSION ' S ATTITUDE IS JUSTIFIED IN PRINCIPLE IN SO FAR AS THE USE OF THE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS NUGATORY WHERE A DECISION IS MADE BY A BODY SUCH AS A SELECTION BOARD FOR A COMPETITION WHICH ADJUDICATES IN COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE AND WHOSE DECISIONS CANNOT BE AMENDED BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY . NEVERTHELESS IN SO FAR AS THE DEFINITIVE NATURE OF SUCH DECISIONS AND THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF A COMPLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO THEM ARE NOT FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGED EITHER BY A PROVISION OF A REGULATION OR BY AN EXPRESS WARNING IN THE DECISIONS THEMSELVES, IT SEEMS INEQUITABLE TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OF HIS RIGHT OF REDRESS WHERE HE HAS MADE HIS COMPLAINT BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD FOR TAKING LEGAL ACTION FOLLOWING THE ACTUAL DECISION .
8 IT IS THEREFORE APPROPRIATE TO IGNORE THE DOUBTS EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION .
SUBSTANCE
9 AS REGARDS THE SUBSTANCE, THE APPLICANT PUTS FORWARD SEVEN SUBMISSIONS BASED MAINLY ON THE FACT THAT HE WAS EXCLUDED DURING THE SELECTION PROCESS OF A COMPETITION COVERING INTER ALIA THE FIELD OF ' ' EXTERNAL RELATIONS ' '
SINCE HE HELD A UNIVERSITY DEGREE IN ECONOMICS ( SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND SIXTH SUBMISSIONS ). IN ADDITION HE PUTS FORWARD SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO LACK OF A SUFFICIENT STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH THE DECISION WAS BASED ( FIRST SUBMISSION ), INFRINGEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY IN THE TREATMENT OF CANDIDATES ( FIFTH SUBMISSION ), AND FINALLY IRREGULAR CONSTITUTION OF THE SELECTION BOARD ( NEW ISSUE RAISED IN THE REPLY ).
THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPLICANT ' S DEGREE
10 IN THE TERMS OF THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION, SECTION III, B 2, FIRST PARAGRAPH, CANDIDATES SHOULD SHOW ' ' UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, WITH DEGREE OR DIPLOMA IN A FIELD APPROPRIATE TO THE OPTION CHOSEN ( SEE SECTION I ). THE SELECTION BOARD
WILL ALLOW FOR DIFFERENCES IN NATIONAL EDUCATION SYSTEMS ' ' . THE APPLICANT CHOSE THE OPTION ' ' EXTERNAL RELATIONS ' ', SO THAT THE DEGREE SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN RELATION TO THAT FIELD .
11 IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT AMONG THE VARIOUS QUALIFICATIONS WHICH THE APPLICANT RELIED UPON IN HIS APPLICATION, ONLY THE DEGREE GRANTED ON 12 MAY 1976 BY THE FACULTY OF LAW AND ECONOMICS OF ORLEANS IS RELEVANT TO THE REQUIREMENT OF THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION QUOTED ABOVE . THE DEGREE CERTIFIES THAT MR AUTHIE ' ' PASSED THE FOURTH YEAR EXAMINATION OF THE DEGREE IN ECONOMICS ' SPECIALIZATION IN ECONOMETRICS '
OF THE SAID FACULTY ON 29 JUNE 1973 WITH THE MARK ' PASSABLE ', ENTITLING HIM TO THE DEGREE OF GRADUATE IN ECONOMICS ' ' ; IT SHOULD BE FURTHER UNDERSTOOD THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF THE COLLEGE OF EUROPE WAS CONSIDERED AS EQUIVALENT TO ' ' PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OBTAINED AFTER GRADUATION ' '
ACCORDING TO THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION, AND THE YEAR OF STUDY AT THE INSTITUT D ' ETUDES POLITIQUES IN PARIS WAS IGNORED SINCE IT WAS NOT EVIDENCED BY ANY DEGREE OR CERTIFICATE .
12 THE APPLICANT SUBMITS IN ESSENCE THAT THE SELECTION BOARD EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY, AS SET OUT IN THE PARTICULARS OF THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION, BY EXCLUDING IN ADVANCE GRADUATES IN ECONOMICS AND MOREOVER THAT THE SELECTION BOARD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE TRUE SIGNIFICANCE OF HIS DEGREE, IGNORING THE STRUCTURE OF THE FRENCH EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM . THE APPLICANT FURTHER ALLEGES THAT THE SELECTION BOARD FOR THE COMPETITION ACTED IN PURSUANCE OF A PREJUDICE AGAINST ECONOMISTS ; IN THIS RESPECT HE REFERS TO CERTAIN STATEMENTS OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION BOARD WHEN GIVING EVIDENCE IN THE FIRST CASE BEFORE THE COURT, FROM WHICH IT APPEARS THAT THE BOARD CONSIDERED THAT CANDIDATES WHO HAD A TRAINING IN ECONOMICS COULD APPROPRIATELY TAKE PART IN COMPETITIONS HELD PERIODICALLY BY THE COMMISSION TO RECRUIT ECONOMISTS BUT THAT THAT TRAINING DID NOT CORRESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS .
13 CONTRARY TO THOSE ALLEGATIONS, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT BY EXCLUDING THE APPLICANT THE SELECTION BOARD FOR THE COMPETITION EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF ITS AUTHORITY OR THAT IT MADE A MISTAKE IN ITS ASSESSMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CANDIDATE .
14 IT SHOULD IN FACT BE RECOGNIZED THAT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION IT WAS FOR THE SELECTION BOARD TO SET UP CRITERIA, IN THE FORM OF GENERAL CATEGORIES, FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CANDIDATES BY DETERMINING THE VARIOUS TYPES OF DEGREE WHICH MIGHT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE VARIOUS SPECIALIZATIONS COVERED BY THE COMPETITION . IN DETERMINING SUCH CRITERIA IT WAS BOTH NECESSARY AND PERMISSIBLE FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE COMMISSION ' S RECRUITMENT POLICY AS IT APPEARS FROM THE SPECIALIZATIONS COVERED BY THE VARIOUS SUCCESSIVE COMPETITIONS . THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION PERIODICALLY HOLDS COMPETITIONS RESERVED FOR CANDIDATES TRAINED AS ECONOMISTS WAS THEREFORE A LEGITIMATE REASON TO CONCENTRATE THE SELECTION CRITERIA ON OTHER TYPES OF TRAINING AND DEGREES . THE BOARD CANNOT THEREFORE BE CRITICIZED FOR EXCEEDING THE LIMITS OF ITS DISCRETION BY EXCLUDING IN A COMPETITION HELD IN THE FIELD OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS A CANDIDATE WHO HELD A DEGREE CERTIFYING A SPECIALIZATION IN ECONOMICS .
15 AS TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE CANDIDATE ' S INDIVIDUAL MERITS, HE ARGUES ON THE ONE HAND THAT THE SELECTION BOARD ALLOWED ITSELF TO BE LED INTO ERROR BY THE SPECIALIZATION IN ECONOMETRICS MENTIONED IN HIS DEGREE WHEN THIS WAS MERELY A SPECIALIZATION OVER AND ABOVE A FIRST DEGREE IN ECONOMICS ; AND ON THE OTHER HAND THAT THE SELECTION BOARD DID NOT TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT HIS CURRICULUM IN ECONOMICS INCLUDED A NUMBER OF SUBJECTS RELEVANT TO EXTERNAL RELATIONS .
16 THE CRITICISMS OF THE APPLICANT SET REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SELECTION BOARD WHICH GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE REVIEW OF ELIGIBILITY WHICH FORMS THE FIRST PHASE OF THE COMPETITION PROCEDURE . AT THAT STAGE IT WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE SELECTION BOARD TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE CANDIDATES FULFILLED PRIMA FACIE AND AS A WHOLE THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION . A SELECTION BOARD CANNOT THEREFORE BE CRITICIZED FOR EXCLUDING THE HOLDER OF A DEGREE WHICH VERY CLEARLY RELATES ON THE FACE OF IT TO A MAIN FIELD OF STUDY WHICH HAS NO PARTICULAR RELEVANCE TO EXTERNAL RELATIONS .
17 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE SELECTION BOARD CANNOT BE HELD TO HAVE EXCEEDED ITS DISCRETION OR HAVE MADE ANY MISTAKE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE DEGREE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT .
THE SUBMISSION OF LACK OF AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF REASONS
18 HAVING REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT THE FIRST DECISION OF THE SELECTION BOARD WAS SET ASIDE FOR LACK OF AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH IT WAS BASED, THE APPLICANT RAISES THE SAME SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND DECISION COMMUNICATED BY LETTER OF 15 JANUARY 1979 .
19 IT MAY BE SEEN FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE SELECTION BOARD ' S DECISION CANNOT IN ITSELF BE CRITICIZED FOR EXCLUDING THE CANDIDATE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF HIS UNIVERSITY DEGREE . IN THE LETTER OF 15 JANUARY 1979 THE BOARD EXPLAINED THE ESSENTIAL REASON FOR ITS DECISION NAMELY THE FACT THAT THE CANDIDATE ' S COURSE OF STUDIES AT UNIVERSITY INASMUCH AS IT DEMONSTRATED KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED ESSENTIALLY IN ECONOMICS WITH A SPECIALIZATION IN ECONOMETRICS, WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY RELEVANT TO THE FIELD OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS . SINCE THIS WAS THE DECISIVE REASON IN VIEW OF THE CRITERIA WHICH THE SELECTION BOARD FOR THE COMPETITION HAD LEGITIMATELY SET UP, THE DECISION CANNOT BE CRITICIZED FOR WANT OF A SUFFICIENT STATEMENT OF REASONS .
20 THIS SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
THE SUBMISSION OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF CANDIDATES
21 IN THIS RESPECT, THE APPLICANT ALLEGES THAT AT THE SAME TIME AS HIS OWN CANDIDATURE WAS EXCLUDED, THE SELECTION BOARD ADMITTED SEVERAL CANDIDATES WHO HAD FOLLOWED COURSES OF STUDIES RELATED TO ECONOMICS . HE SUBMITTED IN PARTICULAR A PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEGREE OF A GERMAN CANDIDATE WHO HELD THE DEGREE OF ' ' DIPLOM-VOLKSWIRT ' '
( GRADUATE IN POLITICAL ECONOMY ), WHO HAD BEEN ADMITTED TO THE SAME COMPETITION .
22 THE COMMISSION ADMITS IN THIS RESPECT THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN CERTAIN INCONSISTENCIES IN THE APPLICATION OF THE SELECTION CRITERIA . AS TO THE CANDIDATES WHO WERE MENTIONED BY NAME BY THE APPLICANT, IN SO FAR AS THEY WERE ADMITTED TO THE COMPETITION, THEY WERE ALL SUBSEQUENTLY ELIMINATED WITHOUT EXCEPTION AT THE TIME OF THE WRITTEN TESTS . NONE OF THEM PASSED THE FINAL STAGE OF THE COMPETITION SO THAT THE APPLICANT COULD NOT RELY ON THEIR CASES TO SHOW THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN INFRINGEMENT OF EQUALITY OF TREATMENT OF CANDIDATES .
23 THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT THE FACTS ALLEGED BY THE APPLICANT, WHICH MIGHT IN ONE OR TWO CASES BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE A CERTAIN PLAUSIBILITY, AGAINST A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 4 000 CANDIDATES ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY COGENT TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION OF DISCRIMINATION . EVEN IF THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE WERE PROVED, THEY WOULD BE INDIVIDUAL ERRORS OF JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SELECTION CRITERIA SET BY THE SELECTION BOARD ; THE APPLICANT CANNOT REQUIRE THAT SUCH ERRORS OF JUDGMENT SHOULD BE EXTENDED FOR HIS BENEFIT .
24 THIS SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
THE SUBMISSION OF IRREGULAR CONSTITUTION OF THE SELECTION BOARD
25 FINALLY THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT FOLLOWING THE ANNULMENT BY THE COURT OF THE FIRST DECISION NOT TO ADMIT HIM, THE NEW DECISION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY A DIFFERENTLY CONSTITUTED BOARD SINCE THE BOARD WHICH HAD TAKEN THE FIRST DECISION WAS BIASED AGAINST HIM . RELYING ON THE MAXIM NEMO JUDEX IN RE SUA HE CHALLENGES IN PARTICULAR THE RIGHT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION BOARD TO TAKE PART IN THE NEW DECISION . WHILST STATING THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO CAST DOUBT ON THE ' ' INTELLECTUAL PROBITY ' '
OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS THAT HE WISHED TO FOLLOW HIS ' ' IDEE FIXE ' '
OF EXCLUDING ECONOMISTS FROM THIS COMPETITION .
26 THE APPLICANT ' S CRITICISMS FAIL TO APPRECIATE ON THIS POINT NOT ONLY THE NATURE OF SELECTION BOARDS, WHICH ARE COLLEGIAL BODIES OPERATING IN COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE, BUT ALSO THE SYSTEM OF LEGAL REDRESS INSTITUTED BY THE TREATY . ARTICLE 176 OF THE EEC TREATY IN FACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ACT OF AN INSTITUTION HAS BEEN DECLARED VOID, THE BODY CONCERNED SHALL BE REQUIRED TO TAKE THE NECESSARY MEASURES TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT ' S JUDGMENT . IN THIS CASE, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF 30 NOVEMBER 1978, THE CASE COULD ONLY BE REMITTED TO THE SELECTION BOARD WHOSE DECISION HAD BEEN ANNULLED .
27 IT SHOULD MOREOVER BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE FIRST DECISION OF THE SELECTION BOARD WAS ANNULLED ONLY FOR A PROCEDURAL FLAW AND FOR LACK OF ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF REASONS . THE SELECTION BOARD THEREFORE REMAINED ENTIRELY FREE IN ITS ASSESSMENT ON THE ACTUAL QUESTION OF THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO TAKE THE WRITTEN TESTS . IT FOLLOWS FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE SELECTION BOARD CANNOT BE CRITICIZED IN ANY WAY AS CONCERNS THE SUBSTANCE OF ITS DECISION OR OF THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH IT WAS BASED . IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE OBJECTIVITY OF THE DECISION TAKEN CANNOT BE CALLED IN QUESTION .
28 THIS SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
29 AS A RESULT OF ALL THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED .
Decision on costs
30 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
31 NEVERTHELESS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE INSTITUTIONS IN CASES BROUGHT BY OFFICIALS OF THE COMMUNITIES ARE BORNE BY THE FORMER .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;
2 . ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .