4.

Another ground for challenging the decision, according to the applicant, is that it involved an infringement of secondary rules of Community law inasmuch as it was based on an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the competition notice (governed by Annex III to the Staff Regulations) relating to the preliminary assessment of qualifications for the purposes of admission to the tests. It is a fact that the applicant possesses a certificate of advanced secondary technical education (accountancy) awarded to him on 12 June 1971 by the Institut d'Enseignement Technique de l'Etat, Tournai. That certificate states that the holder has, in the course of three years, attended 1120 hours of classes in a number of subjects listed therein. The applicant also holds a Diplôme d'Aide-Comptable [Certificate for accountancy assistants], awarded to him on 24 June 1959 by the Ecole de Commerce du Degré Moyen, Tournai, following a four-year course involving 5320 hours of lessons. The Commission does not contest those points. It merely observes that the applicant's certificate does not satisfy the requirements of the notice in that it does not give access to university. I do not think that the text of the notice permits such a restrictive interpretation: indeed, as we have already seen, the notice simply stipulated that the candidate must have completed a course of secondary education and received a final certificate. With regard to secondary education the notice did not distinguish between courses which give access to university and those which lead to a vocational qualification constituting an end in itself. I would point out that, understood in this wider sense, the notice conforms completely with the third subparagraph of Article 5 (1) of the Staff Regulations which requires for recruitment to Category B ‘an advanced level of secondary education’ and does not in fact mention possession of a certificate giving access to university. In the case under consideration the notice also stated (paragraph III B 2) that the selection board, in assessing the certificate, would take into account the differing educational systems in the Member States. In my opinion that provision provides another argument for considering the applicant's certificate adequate, since according to the Belgian regulations that certificate constitutes the culmination of a complete course of secondary education. I do not think it possible to attribute any relevance, having regard to the Belgian regulations, to the fact that the certificate concerned was awarded as a result of a course of evening classes promoted by the State for social purposes: in fact the Belgian Law of 7 July 1970 on the general structure of secondary education lays down that secondary and higher education is provided ‘comme enseignement de plein exercice et comme enseignement de promotion sociale’ (Article 1 (1)) and does not distinguish, as regards their content and effects, between the two types of courses (ordinary or evening) through which education is provided. This all-embracing concept of education strikes me inter alia as being fully in accordance with the principle of the right:o study, which is now included in the list of internationally protected human rights. Moreover, that the certificate obtained at the end of a course of evening classes organized for the promotion of social aims is not an inferior qualification, as compared to the corresponding certificates acquired at the end of ordinary courses, is confirmed by the fact that it is awarded by a State examining commission. Also of significance on this same point is the fact that the Belgian State considers that certificate sufficient for admission to competitions for posts at Grade II in the civil service (see letter of 3 November 1977 from the Belgian Ministry for Education, Annex No 9 to the application). It is true that, in defining the criteria by which to assess candidates' qualifications, the selection board decided (as is clear from the letter of Mr Tugendhat, Annex 12 to the application) to ascertain in each case whether the qualifications ‘gave access to university’. However, in so doing, the board arbitrarily introduced a further formal requirement for admission to the tests in addition to the criteria laid down in the notice. In confirmation of his argument concerning the illegality of the refusal to admit him, the applicant draws attention to the fact that, on the occasion of a previous competition announced in 1975, also to constitute a reserve of administrative assistants in Category B (Competition No COM B/139), the selection board considered his qualifications sufficient. Considering that the notice of the 1975 competitions was drafted exactly as the notice of the competition with which we are concerned, one cannot fail to be sorely puzzled by the fact that two years later the same candidate has been denied recognition that he possesses suitable educational qualifications, although previously he had been properly acknowledged to possess them. With regard to this question the Commission claims that each competition constitutes a separate procedure and that consequently no comparison may be made between the assessments made by different selection boards even though they concern the same candidates. The Commission also argues that the very large number of candidates in the competition concerned necessitated a more stringent selection at that stage of checking the conditions for admission to the written tests. It must be conceded that as a general rule each competition is independent; but it must be borne in mind that the considerations governing the assessment of the tests are not the same as those governing the assessment of the qualifications and requirements for the purpose of admission to the tests. As the Court declared in the judgments, already cited, of 14 June 1972 in Case 44/71 and 15 March 1973 in Case 37/72, while the stage at which performance in the tests is assessed ‘consists mainly of comparison’ and so depends on the number of candidates, the stage of the previous consideration of candidates to decide whether they may be admitted to the tests, ‘entails the matching of the qualifications offered by the candidates against the qualifications required by the competition notice … on the basis of objective facts’.