61983CJ0111_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 111/83
SANTO PICCIOLO, AN OFFICIAL OF THE OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ASSISTED AND REPRESENTED BY VICTOR BIEL OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF MR BIEL, 18 A RUE DES GLACIS,
APPLICANT,
V
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, REPRESENTED BY MANFRED PETER, HEAD OF ITS LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS DIVISION, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY ALEX BONN, OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AT THE CHAMBERS OF MR BONN, 22 COTE D ' EICH,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION NOT TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT ' S CANDIDATURE FOR A POST OF PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATOR ( CAREER BRACKET A 5/4 ) AT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE DECISION ASSIGNING THE POST TO ANOTHER CANDIDATE,
Grounds
1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 15 JUNE 1983, SANTO PICCIOLO, AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, BROUGHT PROCEEDINGS PRIMARILY FOR THE ANNULMENT OF TWO DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, ONE REJECTING THE APPLICANT ' S APPLICATION FOR A POST OF PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, THE OTHER APPOINTING ANOTHER CANDIDATE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 29 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS .
2 IT APPEARS FROM THE CASE-FILE THAT A POST OF PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATOR ( CAREER BRACKET A 5/4 ) WAS VACANT IN THE TREASURY-ACCOUNTS DIVISION OF THE DIREC
TORATE GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION, PERSONNEL AND FINANCE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE PARLIAMENT ' ' ) AND THAT THE PARLIAMENT ISSUED VACANCY NOTICE NO 3599 OF 10 MAY 1982, OPENING THE PROCEDURE FOR THE FILLING OF THAT POST BY TRANSFER OR BY PROMOTION, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 29 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . WITH REGARD TO THE DUTIES TO BE CARRIED OUT AND THE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED, IT APPEARS FROM THE NOTICE THAT THE OFFICIAL IN QUESTION WAS TO BE ' ' RESPONSIBLE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICER FOR ALL ASPECTS OF THE ACCOUNTING SERVICE, THE RECOVERY SERVICE AND THE SERVICE CONTROLLING IMPREST ACCOUNTS ' ', AND THAT HE MUST HAVE INTER ALIA ' ' VERY GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES ' '
AND ' ' EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF COMPUTERIZED ACCOUNTING ' ' .
3 WITHOUT WAITING UNTIL THE CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS, HOWEVER, ON 18 MAY 1982 THE PARLIAMENT SENT TO THE OTHER COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS A SECOND VACANCY NOTICE, NO PE/A/75, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 29 ( 1 ) ( C ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, WITH A VIEW TO FILLING THE POST BY TRANSFER FROM ANOTHER INSTITUTION . WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE DUTIES AND THE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED THAT NOTICE REPEATED THE WORDING OF NOTICE NO 3599 REFERRED TO ABOVE .
4 THE CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS UNDER VACANCY NOTICE NO PE/A/75 WAS 3 JUNE 1982 . BY LETTER OF 28 MAY 1982, THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE PARLIAMENT INFORMED THE JOINT COMMITTEE THAT ' ' IN VIEW OF THE VERY SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE POST ' '
HE HAD ' ' DECIDED TO ADOPT THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 29 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ' ' . HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE A DRAFT RECRUITMENT NOTICE ( NO PE/5/S ) WHICH ALSO ESSENTIALLY REPEATED THE WORDING OF THE PREVIOUS NOTICES WITH REGARD TO THE DUTIES TO BE CARRIED OUT AND THE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED .
5 BY LETTER OF 28 JUNE 1982 THE JOINT COMMITTEE DECLARED THAT RECOURSE TO THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 29 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ; IT EMPHASIZED HOWEVER THAT CERTAIN PUBLICITY MEASURES SHOULD BE TAKEN, INCLUDING THE PUBLICATION OF THE VACANCY NOTICE IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL . NO SUCH PUBLICATION TOOK PLACE, HOWEVER .
6 THE FIRST TWO VACANCY NOTICES, NOTICES NO 3599 AND NO PE/A/75, ELICITED ONLY TWO APPLICATIONS . IN REGARD TO VACANCY NOTICE NO 3599 ONLY ONE OFFICIAL, IN CATEGORY B 1, MADE APPLICATION, INDICATING THE WISH TO TAKE PART IN AN INTERNAL COMPETITION . UNDER VACANCY NOTICE NO PE/A/75 THE ONLY APPLICATION RECEIVED WAS THAT MADE ON 27 MAY 1982 BY THE APPLICANT, AN ADMINISTRATOR IN GRADE A 6 ( ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION ) AT THE OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, IN LUXEMBOURG . THE APPLICANT ATTACHED TO HIS APPLICATION A CURRICULUM VITAE CONTAINING INTER ALIA A FAIRLY DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF HIS EXPERIENCE BEFORE TAKING UP DUTY WITH THE COMMUNITIES, AS WELL AS HIS WORK IN THE OFFICE OF OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS IN THE FIELD OF BUDGETARY, COMMERCIAL AND ANALYTICAL ACCOUNTING . WITH REGARD TO HIS WORK IN THE FIELD OF DATA PROCESSING, THE APPLICANT REFERRED IN PARTICULAR TO HIS ROLE IN THE SETTING UP OF THE ' ' SAGAP-2 ' '
SYSTEM .
7 NOT HAVING BEEN INFORMED OF THE PROGRESS OF THE RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE, ON 5 JULY 1982 THE APPLICANT WROTE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPLICATION . BY LETTER OF 20 AUGUST 1982 THE PARLIAMENT REPLIED THAT THE FINANCE AND DATA PROCESSING DIRECTORATE HAD SELECTED ANOTHER CANDIDATE . THE LETTER ADDED :
' ' THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED TOOK THE VIEW THAT YOUR QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET OUT IN THE TRANSFER NOTICE, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO ' EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF COMPUTERIZED ACCOUNTING ' .
SINCE DATA PROCESSING AT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT HAS ALREADY REACHED A VERY ADVANCED STAGE AND WILL BE DEVELOPED SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THAT EXPERIENCE IS INDISPENSABLE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST . ' '
8 IT APPEARS IN FACT THAT AS EARLY AS 5 JULY 1982 THE POST IN QUESTION HAD BEEN OFFERED TO ANOTHER CANDIDATE ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 29 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . BY DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT OF 6 AUGUST 1982 THAT CANDIDATE WAS APPOINTED TO THE VACANT POST AS A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL IN GRADE A 5 WITH EFFECT FROM 1 AUGUST 1982 .
9 ON 18 NOVEMBER 1982 THE APPLICANT LODGED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DECISIONS REJECTING HIS APPLICATION AND APPOINTING THE OTHER CANDIDATE . SINCE HE RECEIVED NO REPLY TO HIS COMPLAINT HE BROUGHT THESE PROCEEDINGS .
THE CLAIM FOR ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION NOT TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT ' S APPLICATION
10 THE APPLICANT FIRST MAINTAINS THAT IN REJECTING HIS APPLICATION THE ADMINISTRATION REACHED A DECISION WITHOUT EXAMINING THE MATTER AND IN PARTICULAR WITHOUT MAKING CONTACT WITH HIM . EVERY CANDIDATE HAS THE RIGHT, HE SAYS, TO HAVE HIS APPLICATION CAREFULLY CONSIDERED . HERE THERE WAS NOT EVEN A PRETENCE OF CONSIDERATION, SINCE THE RAPIDITY OF THE SELECTION PREVENTED A PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE CANDIDATES . AS A RESULT THE TRUST WHICH THE APPLICANT SHOULD LEGITIMATELY HAVE IN THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WAS PROFOUNDLY SHAKEN AND DISAPPOINTED . THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY BREACHED THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPER ADMINISTRATION, AND ITS ASSERTION THAT THE APPLICANT ' S APPLICATION DID NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE VACANCY NOTICE WAS ENTIRELY WITHOUT FOUNDATION .
11 ACCORDING TO THE PARLIAMENT THE ADMINISTRATION WAS PERFECTLY ABLE TO ASSESS THE APPLICANT ' S QUALIFICATIONS ON THE BASIS OF HIS APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, IN PARTICULAR HIS CURRICULUM VITAE, AND DID IN FACT DO SO . CONTACT WITH THE APPLICANT COULD NOT HAVE PROVIDED NEW OR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION .
12 IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY THE COURT THE PARLIAMENT STATED THAT THE APPLICANT ' S APPLICATION WAS CONSIDERED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE APPLICATIONS MADE UNDER THE PROCEDURE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 29 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . THE SELECTION WAS MADE BY AN INFORMAL SELECTION COMMITTEE WHICH FIRST EXAMINED THE CANDIDATES '
FILES . ON THE BASIS OF THAT EXAMINATION THE COMMITTEE DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT TO CALL CANDIDATES FOR AN INTERVIEW . IN THE APPLICANT ' S CASE THE COMMITTEE DECIDED THAT HE DID NOT FULFIL THE ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION OF ' ' EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF COMPUTERIZED ACCOUNTING ' '
AND THAT AN INTERVIEW WITH HIM WOULD NOT BE LIKELY TO PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION .
13 IN THIS REGARD IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT IN A RECRUITMENT OR TRANSFER PROCEDURE IT IS INCUMBENT UPON EACH CANDIDATE TO PROVIDE ALL THE USEFUL FACTS AND INFORMATION WHICH WILL PERMIT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT HE FULFILS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE VACANCY NOTICE . IT IS FOR THAT AUTHORITY ALONE, OR WHERE APPROPRIATE THE SELECTION COMMITTEE, TO DECIDE WHETHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHOULD BE OBTAINED FROM CANDIDATES . IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT EVEN INDICATED THE INFORMATION WHICH IN HIS VIEW WAS NECESSARY OR USEFUL AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THAT CONTAINED IN HIS CURRICULUM VITAE AND THAT ALREADY KNOWN TO THE SELECTION COMMITTEE WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE RELEVANT WORK IN HIS PRESENT DEPARTMENT . AS A RESULT, SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS IN NO WAY SHOWN THAT HIS APPLICATION WAS NOT SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED DURING THE RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE, IT MUST BE HELD THAT HIS FIRST SUBMISSION IS COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED .
14 SECONDLY, THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE REASON STATED FOR THE DECISION NOT TO ACCEPT HIS APPLICATION, THE ASSERTION THAT HIS EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE DID NOT CORRESPOND TO THE REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS, WAS IN ANY EVENT INCORRECT . THE APPLICANT STATES THAT HE IS ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE OF COMPUTER ACCOUNTING AND THAT IN HIS PRESENT POST AT THE COMMISSION HE EVEN DEALS WITH THE COMPUTER ACCOUNTING OF THE PARLIAMENT .
15 IN ITS WRITTEN PLEADINGS THE PARLIAMENT SIMPLY EMPHASIZED THAT THE APPLICANT ' S KNOWLEDGE WAS TO BE ASSESSED BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND NOT BY THE APPLICANT HIMSELF . IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY THE COURT, HOWEVER, THE PARLIAMENT STATED THAT IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT ' S CURRICULUM VITAE THAT THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DECIDED THAT HE DID NOT FULFIL THE ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION OF ' ' EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF COMPUTERIZED ACCOUNTING ' ' . THE EXPERIENCE ACQUIRED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE POST HE THEN OCCUPIED WAS NOT CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT, SINCE SIMILAR TASKS WERE AT THE PARLIAMENT ENTRUSTED TO AN EMPLOYEE IN GRADE B 1 . WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAGAP-2 SYSTEM, TO WHICH THE APPLICANT REFERRED IN HIS CURRICULUM VITAE, IT DEALT ONLY WITH COMPUTER ADDRESSING AND WAS THEREFORE NOT RELEVANT TO THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR THE VACANT POST . THE APPLICANT DID NOT DISPUTE THAT INFORMATION .
16 ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT IT IS FOR THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO ASSESS WHETHER A CANDIDATE FULFILS THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE VACANCY NOTICE, AND THAT ASSESSMENT MAY BE QUESTIONED ONLY IN THE EVENT OF MANIFEST ERROR .
17 IN VIEW OF THE DETAILS PROVIDED BY THE PARLIAMENT CONCERNING THE APPLICANT ' S MERITS IN RELATION TO THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR THE POST IN QUESTION AS REGARDS EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF COMPUTERIZED ACCOUNTING, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE PARLIAMENT COMMITTED ANY ERROR OF ASSESSMENT, MUCH LESS A MANIFEST ERROR, IN CONSIDERING THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT FULFIL THE CONDITIONS OF THE VACANCY NOTICE IN THAT RESPECT . AS A RESULT THE APPLICANT ' S SECOND SUBMISSION MUST BE REJECTED .
18 THE APPLICANT FURTHER ARGUES THAT NO SUFFICIENT REASONS WERE STATED IN THE DECISION NOT TO ACCEPT HIS APPLICATION . THE STATEMENT OF GROUNDS MUST, HE SAYS, ENABLE THE REJECTED CANDIDATE TO RECOGNIZE THE POSSIBLE REASONS FOR HIS REJECTION AND INFORM HIM OF THE OBJECTIVE FACTS ON WHICH THE SELECTION WAS BASED . IN THIS CASE THE ONLY REASONS STATED FOR THE REJECTION AMOUNTED TO THE SIMPLE REFERENCE TO A CONDITION ALLEGED NOT TO HAVE BEEN FULFILLED .
19 ACCORDING TO THE PARLIAMENT THE REASONS STATED IN SUPPORT OF THE DECISION NOT TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT ' S APPLICATION WERE APPROPRIATE AND SUFFICIENT . THE ADMINISTRATION INFORMED THE APPLICANT NOT ONLY OF THE FACT THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN APPOINTED BUT ALSO OF THE REASONS ON WHICH THAT DECISION WAS BASED IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE POST TO BE FILLED .
20 IN THIS REGARD REFERENCE MUST BE MADE TO THE SETTLED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT ACCORDING TO WHICH THE OBLIGATION TO STATE THE REASONS ON WHICH A DECISION ADVERSELY AFFECTING AN OFFICIAL IS BASED IS INTENDED ON THE ONE HAND TO ENABLE THE COURT TO REVIEW THE LEGALITY OF THE DECISION AND ON THE OTHER HAND TO PROVIDE THE PERSON CONCERNED WITH THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO RECOGNIZE WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION IS WELL FOUNDED .
21 IN THIS CASE THE PARLIAMENT INFORMED THE APPLICANT THAT HE DID NOT FULFIL THE CONDITION CONCERNING EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF COMPUTERIZED ACCOUNTING . IT
ALSO EXPLAINED TO HIM WHY SUCH EXPERIENCE WAS INDISPENSABLE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST IN QUESTION, BUT DID NOT STATE IN DETAIL WHY THE EXPERIENCE TO WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD REFERRED IN HIS APPLICATION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT IN THAT RESPECT .
22 THE POSSIBILITY CANNOT BE EXCLUDED THAT THAT STATEMENT OF REASONS MAY HAVE CAUSED THE APPLICANT TO HAVE DOUBTS WHETHER THE REJECTION WAS WELL FOUNDED . HOWEVER, THE DETAILS GIVEN BY THE PARLIAMENT IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY THE COURT HAVE ENABLED THE COURT TO EXERCISE ITS POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AND TO CHECK THE CORRECTNESS OF THE REASONS STATED . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CONCISENESS OF THE REASONS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE ANNULMENT OF THE MEASURE IN QUESTION .
23 FINALLY, IN HIS REPLY THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE DECISION NOT TO ACCEPT HIS APPLICATION AND THE STATEMENT OF REASONS ON WHICH THAT DECISION WAS BASED WERE NOTIFIED TO HIM LATE . IT WAS ONLY UPON HIS OWN INSISTENCE THAT HE WAS INFORMED THAT HE HAD BEEN REJECTED, 50 DAYS AFTER THE POST HAD BEEN OFFERED TO ANOTHER CANDIDATE .
24 ACCORDING TO THE PARLIAMENT THIS SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICANT MUST BE REJECTED INASMUCH AS IT WAS NOT MADE IN THE APPLICATION ORIGINATING THE PROCEEDINGS . IN ANY EVENT THE NOTIFICATION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN LATE, AND EVEN IF IT WAS, THAT FACT HAD NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE APPLICANT .
25 EVEN THOUGH THE NOTIFICATION WAS IN FACT MADE AFTER AN UNFORTUNATE DELAY, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RULE ON THE QUESTION OF THE LATENESS OF THE SUBMISSION BUT IT IS SUFFICIENT TO REFER TO THE CASE-LAW OF THE COURT ACCORDING TO WHICH A DELAY IN THE NOTIFICATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED CANNOT ENTAIL THE ANNULMENT OF THAT DECISION, SINCE ITS NOTIFICATION IS AN ACT SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION AND THEREFORE HAS NO INFLUENCE ON ITS CONTENTS ( SEE THE JUDGMENT OF 29 . 10 . 1981, ARNING V COMMISSION, CASE 125/80, ( 1981 ) ECR 2539 ).
26 SINCE ALL THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION REJECTING HIS APPLICATION HAVE PROVED UNFOUNDED, THE CLAIM MUST BE DISMISSED .
THE CLAIM FOR ANNULMENT OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ANOTHER CANDIDATE
27 IN THIS RESPECT THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE OPENING OF THE SPECIAL RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 29 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WERE NOT MET IN THIS CASE AND THAT THE APPOINTMENT MUST THEREFORE BE ANNULLED .
28 THE PARLIAMENT TAKES THE VIEW THAT THIS CLAIMS IS INADMISSIBLE . SINCE THE APPLICANT DID NOT HIMSELF FULFIL THE CONDITIONS FOR APPOINTMENT THE APPOINTMENT OF ANOTHER CANDIDATE CANNOT ADVERSELY AFFECT HIM . MOREOVER THE CLAIM IS ALSO UNFOUNDED SINCE ALL THE CONDITIONS OF APPLICATION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 29 ( 2 ) WERE IN FACT MET .
29 ACCORDING TO WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW, IN ORDER FOR AN OFFICIAL TO BRING PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AGAINST A DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, HE MUST HAVE A PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE ANNULMENT OF THE MEASURE IN QUESTION ( SEE THE JUDGMENT OF 29 . 10 . 1975, MARENCO AND OTHERS V COMMISSION, JOINED CASES 81 TO 88/74, ( 1975 ) ECR 1247, AND THE JUDGMENT OF 30 . 6 . 1983, SCHLOH V COUNCIL, CASE 85/82, ( 1983 ) ECR 2105 ). SINCE ALL THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPLICANT IN REGARD TO THE DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY NOT TO ACCEPT HIS APPLICATION FOR THE VACANT POST HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE ILL-FOUNDED, THE APPLICANT HAS NO LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN THE ANNULMENT OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ANOTHER CANDIDATE TO THAT POST, WHICH HE CANNOT HIMSELF VALIDLY CLAIM . THIS CLAIM OF THE APPLICANT MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .
Decision on costs
COSTS
30 ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN ALL HIS SUBMISSIONS IT IS NONE THE LESS NECESSARY, IN MAKING AN ORDER AS TO COSTS, TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CONSIDERATIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE REGARDING THE CONCISENESS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH THE DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY NOT TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT ' S APPLICATION WAS BASED . IT WAS ONLY AS A RESULT OF THE REPLIES PROVIDED BY THE PARLIAMENT TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY THE COURT THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT FULLY TO ASSESS THE REASONS STATED . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE CRITICIZED FOR HAVING BROUGHT THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REVIEW OF THE LEGALITY OF THE DECISIONS OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IN QUESTION .
31 IT IS THEREFORE APPROPRIATE TO APPLY ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE COURT MAY ORDER EVEN A SUCCESSFUL PARTY TO PAY COSTS IN PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE ARISEN AS A RESULT OF ITS OWN CONDUCT .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;
2.ORDERS THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO PAY THE WHOLE OF THE COSTS, INCLUDING THOSE OF THE APPLICANT .