2.

The main issue in dispute, to which I shall now turn, is whether the applicant was wrongly excluded from the competition during the first stage — the examination of qualifications. (a) The main reason why she assumes that she was is that the examination was not complete. She was in fact entitled according to the conditions of the notice of competition and to the provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials to assume that all the relevant certificates did not have to be sent in immediately but would be called for if necessary by the Selection Board. However, this did not happen and for that reason in her case certificates concerning her knowledge of languages, a certificate referring to the completion of a teacher-training course and also the certificate relating to the probationary period which she served with the Commission were not taken into consideration. When examining this issue — on this point the Parliament is right — it is of the first importance that this particular competition was based on qualifications and tests. It follows from this that in the first stage of the competition procedure qualifications were very important and it must therefore have been obvious to candidates that they should enclose in the first instance with their application any qualification which might appear to have some importance. Moreover, in favour of that view and against the argument that candidates could have awaited a request to send in certificates there is not only the fact that, when there is a large number of candidates, and this was to be expected since a reserve list was to be drawn up, such requests for additional documents would have raised considerable technical problems and entailed an undesirable loss of time. In that context reference may also be made to the common formulation of the general provisions governing open competitions and the notice of open competition. In particular, it is of interest to note that the plural is used throughout, whether in the general provisions, which mention diplomas and other academic qualifications and advise candidates to send in copies thereof, or in the notice of competition, which states that after deciding the criteria by which to assess candidates' qualifications the Selection Board will examine the qualifications of each candidate. On the other hand, conclusive importance can hardly be attached to the arguments put forward by the applicant on this point. This applies first of all to her references to the fact that the notice of competition only mentions diplomas and other evidence of formal qualifications relating to university studies in certain disciplines. The fact must not be overlooked that this was stated with the purpose of laying down the minimum conditions of admission which candidates had to fulfil. Having regard to the rest of the wording of the notice of competition it cannot be inferred that only such certificates had to be produced. This applies as well to her reference to the recommendation in the general provisions governing open competitions to send in copies of diplomas and other evidence of formal qualifications corresponding to the highest level of studies completed by candidates. In my view the meaning of this recommendation is absolutely clear: it is intended to save candidates unnecessary expense and to prevent an unnecessary increase in the number of documents, since certificates are not relevant if they are only prerequisites for attaining the highest level of studies. As against that, it was wrong to infer from this an indication that not all the important certificates have to be lodged immediately and that as far as the latter are concerned a request to produce them from the Selection Board could be awaited. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the applicant herself did not proceed in accordance with her own understanding of the recommendation as expressed in her application but immediately sent other certificates such as her junior high school and final school leaving diplomas — that is to say certificates relating to unimportant intermediate stages. Finally, the same applies to her reference to the second paragraph of Article 2 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities which reads — and the wording is also found in the general provisions governing open competitions — ‘[Candidates] may be required to furnish additional documents or information’. In fact the wording of that provision excludes the possibility of inferring therefrom an obligation to require additional documents. It is simply a permissive provision which may at best be relevant in exceptional cases at the Selection Board's discretion. I therefore believe that the Selection Board cannot be criticized for not having required the applicant to furnish additional documents and for having wrongly carried out the requisite tests on an incomplete basis. If the tests were incomplete that was due to a failure to an in accordance with the procedure for which the applicant alone is responsible. Permit me however to add — although this is not a determinative factor for the decision in this case — that the impression is inescapable that the certificates which the applicant sent in later could scarcely have had any influence on the Selection Board's decision. This becomes quite clear once we are familiar with the criteria which the Selection Board applied when examining the qualifications. With regard to the documents which relate to the applicant's knowledge of languages it is important to note that knowledge of languages did not play any part in the first stage of the examination of the candidate's file — if the particulars in the application form concerning minimum standards are disregarded. According to the Parliament knowledge of languages was to be assessed during the oral test. The same conclusion has to be drawn in the case of the applicant's reference to the fact that she also studied to become a teacher and in conjunction therewith completed a course at an establishment for further vocational training. As far as that is concerned it would seem to be of importance that this was not special training but only part of the training of which the applicant gave particulars in her application form. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how anything could be found in the certificate produced by the applicant, relating to a one month practical course which she attended and during which she took two teaching tests, which could be relevant when applying for a post in the Community in Grades A 7/A 6, even from the point of view of personnel administration. Finally, with reference to the fact that the applicant worked for one year in the field of economics with the Directorate-General for Credit and Investments of the Commission and after the expiry of her probationary period received a report, it is in my opinion sufficient to know that this was a post in grade B 5. Under the third subparagraph of Article 5 (1) of the Staff Regulations a university degree is not necessary for such a post. In the competition with which we are concerned such duties could not therefore be regarded as equivalent professional experience. Furthermore, since this was a fact which clearly emerged from the applicant's application form — an assessment did not have to be made in this first stage of the competition procedure — it was not concealed from the Selection Board. (b) Since nothing has emerged so far which might justify any criticism of the proceedings of the Selection Board the applicant's further criticism, that there are at least two other reasons for calling in question the way in which the competition based on qualifications was conducted, now has to be considered. The applicant first of all expresses the view that it is difficult to understand why the Selection Board applied four criteria, when in practice it was only concerned with the assessment of a single certificate, since the particulars given in the application form — being subjective assessments — should have been disregarded. In the second place, she submits that one candidate was admitted to sit the written test although his university degree was no better than the applicant's. It may be presumed from this and other similar individual cases, of which no further details were given, that for the admission of candidates to the written tests considerations unconnected with certificates played a part. On this point, in view of the reply of the Parliament and after production of the Selection Board's report on the conduct of the competition, the following brief observations may be submitted. — We now know how the criteria by which the Selection Board assessed the qualifications were elaborated. Marks were not only awarded for a university education which led to the award of a degree or for equivalent professional experience. Additional marks could be given for other examinations (the second State examination or doctorate), for studies and experience connected with European institutions and also for special professional experience. Consequently not only university degrees and diplomas but also particulars taken from the application form or curriculum vitae played a part. It is in my opinion, therefore, quite understandable why the Selection Board specified four criteria for its assessment of qualifications. Nor is it my impression that this procedure lies outside the discretion which a Selection Board is entitled to exercise in each case during such a procedure. In particular, I can find no cause for complaining that factors other than certificates were also taken into consideration since the elements considered were plainly objective matters which did not depend upon a subjective assessment by the candidates themselves. — On the other hand, as far as concerns the admission to the written test of a candidate whose marks for a university qualification were said to be no better than the applicant's I am satisfied with the Parliament's statement on this point that in the first stage of the tests the Selection Board did not consider the marks awarded at all, because the requisite degree of comparability was not present. The fact that different marks were awarded does not therefore adequately prove that extraneous considerations could have played a part in deciding who was eligible for the written test. On the contrary, to prove that this was so it would have to be shown that in fact there was no justification for awarding the other candidate further marks in respect of the additional factors mentioned and thus render him eligible for the written test. Since, however, this has not been done it can only be recorded that the applicant's presumption that the first selection to be made was not properly carried out — further allegations not being substantiated — falls short of a valid criticism of the competition. (c) All the above forces me to conclude that the applicant's claims, from whatever point of view they are considered, cannot be regarded as having been substantiated.