2.

(a) The applicant argues first of all that Mr K, her rival in the competition, did not satisfy the entrance requirements set out in the notice of competition. He should therefore not have been admitted to the competition because he did not have the necessary experience, namely ‘at least six years' practical experience at senior level, in work related to the post to be filled’, which was a post of reviser/principal translator. The applicant also points out that an identically composed Selection Board in a subsequent competition for a post of head of section — Competition No CC/LA/4/83 in which the notice of competition stipulated a requirement of practical experience which, except for the number of years, was in identical terms — interpreted the entrance requirements as meaning that a minimum amount of experience as a reviser or head of section or in both capacities was needed. The Court of Auditors points out that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the appointing authority has. no power to examine the results of the deliberations of a Selection Board or the bases, on which it took its decisions. It therefore has no power to check whether the Selection Board's decision to admit Mr K to the competition was correct. In any case, the applicant's legal interest in challenging the Selection Board's decision to admit Mr K must be in doubt since she herself was admitted to the competition on the basis of the same interpretation of the entrance requirements which she now challenges. (b) The question to be determined at this juncture is whether the abovementioned admission requirement is an objective criterion susceptible to judicial ( 9 ) review or whether it is a criterion which requires an evaluation by the Selection Board. In the latter case, the substance of the Selection Board's decisions would not. be open to review since it would enjoy a measure of discretion; the only question to be examined would then be whether the procedure was properly carried out. The notice of competition refers to ‘at least six years' practical experience at senior level, in work related to the post to be filled’. As is stated in the notice of competition, the post to be filled is a post of reviser/principal translator. However, the notice does not indicate what is meant by experience ‘at senior level’. The admission requirements are not therefore framed in such a way that it is possible to determine whether they are satisfied simply by applying objective criteria. It was therefore necessary for the Selection Board to determine the criteria for the admission of candidates before admitting them to the competition so as to be able to decide upon their admission on the basis of those criteria. That duty arises from the incomplete wording of the notice of competition and from Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. According to the first paragraph of that article, the Selection Board must initially only examine the candidates' files and draw up a list of candidates who meet the requirements set out in the notice of competition. However, if the requirements of the notice of competition are not directly applicable on their own but require a value interpretation by the Selection Board, the Board must lay down the criteria for the interpretation of the entrance requirements before examining whether candidates qualify for admission. If it did not set out those criteria in advance, the Selection Board would subsequently not be in a position correctly to draw up the list of suitable candidates provided for in the sixth paragraph of Aräde 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations in the prescribed manner, which must include a reasoned report. In this context I therefore think that it is necessary to apply by analogy the third paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III where a criterion in a notice of competition which has not been set out in sufficient detail requires a value judgment by the Selection Board. However, the minutes of the Selection Board's meeting on 29 June 1983 contain no indication that it laid down those criteria for the interpretation of the admission requirements. The minutes merely state that, after deliberation, the Selection Board decided to admit the two candidates to the competition. That conclusion, namely that the Selection Board did not lay down criteria for the interpretation of the admission requirements, at least not before examining the candidates' files, is borne out by the statements of the Court of Auditors at the hearing. The Court of Auditors stated in fact that the requirement of practical experience at a senior level was first discussed when the two applications were examined. On the view that neither of the candidates could be admitted if strict requirements were imposed, it was agreed only to require experience at a less senior level, namely experience as a translator. That step on the part of the Selection Board is incompatible with Annex HI to the Staff Regulations. Since, in my view, the third paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III must be applied by analogy where admission requirements are not sufficiently specific, that is to say where, as in the case of the assessment of qualifications, the criteria for their assessment must be laid down in advance, I can refer to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 December 1965 in Morina ( 10 ), in which the Court stated: ‘More particularly, by failing to set out the criteria according to which it made its assessment of the qualifications, the Selection Board omitted from its report a factor which was essential to support the statements contained therein; it thereby infringed the provisions in the sixth paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations ... ’. Those statements of the Court of Justice are fully applicable in this case. The same is true of the subsequent reasoning given in that judgment, which was as follows: ‘[The provisions of the sixth paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations] ... must be considered requirements of substance. The criteria of assessment should be fixed in order to ensure that the qualifications are assessed objectively and without any possibility of arbitrariness. In addition, the requirement that the report be “reasoned” enables the appointing authority to exercise its discretion with judgment, which means that it needs to be informed of both the general criteria employed by the Selection Board and the manner in which these were applied by the Board to the persons appearing on the list of suitable candidates. These requirements were also imposed in the interests of candidates, so that infringement of them adversely affects the unsuccessful candidates within the meaning of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations.’ It is clear from the minutes of the Selection Board's meeting on 29 June 1983 and the statements of the Court of Auditors in the course of the oral procedure that the Selection Board did not establish those criteria. For that reason alone the Selection Board's decision to admit both candidates to Competition No CC/LA/20/82 must be considered unlawful.