(a)

First, the question arises as to whether this is at all permissible in a competition on the basis of qualifications (tests which would have been possible did not in fact take place). The applicants emphatically contest this and refer to the second paragraph of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations which states: ‘The selection board may, for certain tests, be assisted by one or more examiners serving in an advisory capacity’. In view of the requirement in Article 6 of Annex III that the proceedings of the selection board shall be secret, and in view of the principle of the independence of the selection bouard, which excludes outside influences, they also take the view that the provision quoted should be strictly interpreted. This can only mean that examiners are allowed only in connexion with written tests; further, at most they could be entrusted with certain delegated tasks, such as marking. However this may be, they claim that the necessity of recourse to examiners can under no circumstances be accepted in the present case. The selection board itself was able in less than 15 days to consider over 700 applications and decide upon admissibility to the competition. Accordingly the task of considering the remaining 550 candidates and drawing up a list of suitable candidates without outside help could hardly have overtaxed it. Let me say immediately that in this respect I do not share the applicant's view but rather that of the Commission. As is known the latter rejects a narrow interpretation of the said provision on the basis of the principle that a selection board must be sovereign and free in the organization of its work and also on the basis of the objective of the provision, from which it is clear that it is concerned quite generally with the provision of assistance where a competition involves material difficulties. No decisive argument can be derived either from the requirement of ensuring the independence of the selection board or from the secret nature for its work. Obviously, both principles are rendered less absolute by Article 3 of Annex III which permits the appointment of examiners and this can mean at mon that in relation to confidentiality there is a corresponding obligation also on the examiners. Article 3 is in particular not authority for the proposition that examiners may be appointed only where there are written tests and that their functions are restricted to objective tasks of execution as the applicants think. There is nothing to indicate this and it would obviously not be reasonable. As is clearly apparent, the appointment of examiners may seem appropriate in oral tests, such as those concerned with specialist knowledge of a linguistic or other nature. It is hard to conceive how their function could be restricted to tasks of execution; it seems to me obvious that the expertise of the examiners must in such a case also extend to the assessment of candidates, which can require quite complex judgments. If the scope of Article 3 is basically to be interpreted in this way (in my opinion no comment is required on the fact that examiners have to make delicate assessments even in the case of written tests), there is certainly no reason why it should justify the conclusion that in an examination on the basis of qualifications no such help may be given. It may also happen here (for instance if it is a question of national certificates or qualifications) that an expert judgment is required and that the selection board itself cannot provide this. Furthermore, considerations of the weight of work must also be relevant. If this were disregarded then in the event of numerous applications, as in the present case, the consequence would be that a competition which was in the hands of only three members of a selection board would take an unusually long time, which would certainly be in the interests neither of the staff nor of the service. If in addition, as the applicants claim, consideration is given to whether in the present case there was in fact cause to appoint examiners, then no objections arise on the basis of the facts disclosed during the proceedings (although review by the Court is obviously limited in view of the discretion exercised by the selection board). In this respect it is sufficient to mention that the certificates and qualifications of numerous candidates from different countries had to be examined and compared with one another. On the other hand, it is misconceived for the applicants to refer to the fact that the selection board itself determined those admitted to the competition, since that task, which had to be performed on the basis of the conditions of entry laid down in the notice of competition itself, was obviously less difficult and time-consuming than the subsequent consideration of the content of the qualifications and their comparison with one another. Finally, if it is borne in mind that the examiners were appointed on a basis of parity which offered a similar, if not greater, guarantee of objectivity as did the composition of the selection board, then it must be found that there is certainly no cause to object to the competition on the first ground put forward by the applicants.