4.

Like Angelini in Case 131/82, Renaud asserts that that choice is vitiated because the grounds on which it was based were not sufficiently stated; and, as in Angelini's case, it seems to me that that cannot constitute a ground for annulment. However, another question specific to this case on the other hand deserves to be dealt with in depth. Renaud, it has been stated, is indisputably qualified for the post which was declared vacant. Can it be argued on the basis of Article 50 of the Staff Regulations that an official who is retired and whose suitability is established is to be accorded precedence over the candidates of a lower grade? Renaud obviously is of that opinion. He relies upon two principles; the principle of security of tenure which, although to a lesser extent, applies also to officials in Grade A 2, and the principle of equity, whereby an official who would have to leave the service in the event of an unfavourable decision deserves more vigorous protection than an employee whose career advancement would merely be slowed down by such a decision. The Commission emphasized that there was no trace in Article 50 of any preferenţial right to reemployment. In situations like the one under consideration, the Commission points out, the interests of the service, which require that the most suitable candidate be chosen, must prevail. Of the two lines of reasoning the second seems to me to be better founded. In fact, the third paragraph of Article 50 does no more than prescribe that an official who is retired and is “not assigned to. another post in his category or service corresponding to his grade” is entitled to an allowance calculated in accordance with Annex IV; and indeed no preferential right of reemployment can be founded on a rule of that kind, which concentrates wholly on financial safeguards for an official who is retired without any fault on his part. Nor can such a right be derived from the principles to which the applicant refers. As is evident from Article 50 itself and the case-law relating thereto, officials in Grades A 1 and A 2 do not enjoy security of tenure; and the principle of equity is too general for the consequences claimed by the applicant to be deduced from it. At most, that principle may justify preference for an official who is retired where he has the same merits as the other candidates. The question therefore remains whether by choosing Beseler the Commission acted unlawfully. In view of the fact that by virtue of the case-law of the Court a decision of that kind may be vitiated only by manifest errors of assessment, the answer to the question must be in the negative. I would refer in that respect to the duties associated with the vacant post as described in Notice No COM/1226/81 (Annex 2 to the rejoinder); and I would refer to the observations of the Commission regarding the scientific publications of the candidate who was chosen and his considerable specific experience acquired over long years of service in the Directorate General for External Relations. When that fact is compared with the qualifications of the applicant, referred to in the opinion of the Consultative Committee of 13 October 1981 (long experience acquired before entering the service of the Commission “of the problems of external trade” and responsibility for studying the problems “of external relations in the field of energy” as chief adviser to the Directorate General for Energy), the Commissions's view that Beseler is more suitable is fully justified. It seems therefore to be adequately demonstrated that the claims put forward in the alternative are also without foundation.