3.

The third ground of the application, which relates to the notice of internal competition laid down by the appointing authority and in particular the criteria of assessment contained therein, seems, on the other hand, to be more important. Thus, as is known, it was laid down that with regard to marks attributed to linguistic knowledge only those above five were to be regarded. It was also provided that there should be attributed 0 to 40 marks under the heads set out in the documents, that is there was the same maximum number of marks as for the two oral tests, for it was laid down that there were to be 0 to 30 marks for a test of 15 minutes' duration on subjects relating to the duties attaching to the post referred to in the notice and 0 to 10 marks for another test of 10 minutes' duration relating to linguistic knowledge. In my opinion there are obvious objections to this limited consideration for marks for linguistic knowledge and this does not need further argument. Such methods of assessment do not allow the knowledge required to be correctly assessed and in particular the results do not permit the differences in linguistic knowledge to be precisely ascertained. It is not clear to me how this can be justified in a competition. With regard to the fixing of a scale of marks for qualifications on the one hand and oral tests on the other I would remind you that in my opinion in Case 23/74 I mentioned objections to the influence and importance of marks resulting solely from a short conversation. In the competition then in question there were ten criteria for the consideration of qualifications each with ten possible marks and on the other hand for two further criteria which were the subject of a conversation there was a total of 20 marks. If that weighting were contestable on that occasion the same must hold true even more so in respect of the weighting prescribed for competition A/51. It seems to me impossible to evaluate the influence of objective criteria such as seniority, age, university qualifications, reports under Article 43 of the Staff Regulations etc., which often cover long periods, in the same way as the influence of a conversation of some 25 minutes' duration. Those who have been present at oral tests know how important chance is — choice of questions and the form of the candidates on the day. If the same weight is attached to their results as to qualifications obtained over many years the danger of a false assessment and also of manipulation is considerable. To this extent therefore it must be said that there is an obviously false relationship and the conditions in the notice must be strongly criticized from this point of view. To draw the conclusion from this, however, that the results of the competition may be completely disregarded and that the appointment made as a result of it must be declared illegal would be premature. With regard to the contested assessment of linguistic knowledge it is significant that there is uncertainty only in respect of one candidate placed on the list of suitable candidates as a result of awarding no marks. Since, however, this candidate was placed on the list of suitable candidates below not only the appointed official but also the applicant, it may be said that a correction of the list of suitable candidates by removing the defect indicated would have no effect whatsoever on the contested decision of appointment. On the basis of the material we have before us there is no problem in adjusting the unusual weighting attached to the test papers and results of the test. If this is done and a ratio of 4: 1 for qualifications and oral tests taken as a basis, it is apparent that the composition of the list of suitable candidates would be affected only slightly — one candidate would lose and another gain — and that there would also be no basic change in the order. Although the appointed official would no longer be in the second but rather the third place, he would nevertheless still be in front of the applicant who on the changed weighting would take the fourth place. In these circumstances it may be assumed that the appointing authority would scarcely have adopted another decision with regard to filling the vacancy, that is, it must be said that the defect mentioned has had no effect on the contested decision. It is therefore my opinion that in spite of the justifiable criticism that was mentioned, there is no ground for declaring the competition illegal as a whole and accordingly for annulling the decision of appointment made as a result of it.