2.

I should say straightaway that the only competition which is being challenged is that in relation to the post of administrator at the Information Office in Rome. That is apparent from the pleadings and was confirmed by the applicant's representative at the hearing. In support of the alleged breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectation Counsel for the applicant submitted that the subject chosen by the Selection Board for the first written test had no connection with the actual duties of the post to be filled as described in the vacancy notice. Thus the administration and the Selection Board had not taken account of the fact that the applicants had relied on the terms of the notice of competition, on the basis of which they had expected that the main written test would be on a general subject connected with the work of the Information Office in Rome. In my view those facts cannot be said to amount to a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectation. It is well-known that, according to the decisions of this Court, in order to be relevant the expectation must be based on precise assurances given by the administration to the persons concerned. In this respect I refer to the judgment of 5 June 1973 in Case 81/72 Commission ν Council [1973] ECR 575 where the Court held that there was a breach of the staff's confidence in the administration because the Council had undertaken that in exercising its powers under Article 65 of the Staff Regulations it would observe a particular method of calculating the effects of changes in purchasing power on salaries and had subsequently failed to adhere to that method. In the present case the administration on the other hand has assumed no obligations in respect of the candidates: it confined itself to drafting and publishing a notice of competition pursuant to the provisions of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. Let us, however, overlook that erroneous aspect of the first submission and consider the applicant's argument from another point of view. If in conducting a competition by means of a Selection Board established for that purpose the administration does not comply with the particulars stated in the competition notice, it infringes the rules applying to competitions. Article 29 (1) or the Staff Regulations provides that “the appointing authority shall ... follow the procedure for competitions ... Annex III lays down the competition procedure”. Amongst the conditions laid down by Article 28 for the appointment of an official is a requirement that he shall have “passed a competition ... as provided for in Annex III”. Article 1 (b) of that annex in turn provides that the notice of competition must specify “the kind of competition”. It seems clear to me therefore that if the Selection Board were to fail to observe the particulars in the notice that would constitute an infringement of the Staff Regulations and vitiate the whole competition. It therefore remains to be ascertained whether in the present case the Selection Board did in fact disregard the terms of the notice, in particular the clause regarding the subject of the written test. It must not be forgotten that the competition in question related to a post which involved the performance — under the authority of a superior — of duties connected with information and public relations. Paragraph I of the notice stated that the work involved contact with the press, specialist circles, lectures and drafting. In paragraph V (a) the subject of the first written test was given as follows: “Essay on a general subject bearing directly on the duties involved”. We have already seen that candidates were asked to: “Describe in the form of an article for a magazine having a wide circulation the advantages or disadvantages of your country's belonging to the Community”. It seems to me that a subject of that kind was in accordance with the notice both as regards its content and the level of difficulty which it presented. In the first place, the subject was of general Community interest and the requirement to treat it in the form of an article for a magazine with a wide circulation was consonant with the qualifications required of the candidates and the kind of duties connected with the vacant post. It must be remembered that paragraph III of the notice stated that tne qualifications required of candidates included languages and knowledge of the “information media and the parliamentary systems in Italy” together with a “thorough knowledge of the structure and activities of the European Community”. The subject chosen therefore represented an appropriate means of assessing the aptitude of the candidates not only as regards the specific duties described in the notice by the terms “lectures” and “drafting” but also the general level of education necessary for performing all the tasks associated with the post. Secondly, as regards the degree of difficulty, I must observe straightaway that investigation of that issue might entail a review of the administration's exercise of its discretion which of course this Court is not permitted to perform. If however that hurdle is overcome there seems to me no reason to doubt that the Selection Board complied with the notice in assessing the level of knowledge which the essay required of the applicants. It must also be borne in mind that the vacancy was in Category A and that according to the second subparagraph of Article 5 (1) of the Staff Regulations officials belonging to that category are engaged in administrative and advisory duties which require university education or equivalent experience. In addition, as I have already remarked, the notice required the applicants to have inter alia a thorough knowledge of the Community's activities.