1.

In order to dispute the regularity of the steps taken and, consequendy, the appointment of Mrs Louwage, he bases his argument essentially on the fact that it was a competition on the basis of qualifications and that the Selection Board incorrectly assessed the value of his qualifications compared to those of the candidate who was placed first. During the written procedure he listed his qualifications and the assessments made of him by his superiors and insisted on the production of Mrs Louwage's personal file, which you did not consider it necessary to order. Subsequendy, the European Parliament voluntarily produced the report of the Selection Board and it was upon this document that the arguments at the hearing centred. You are in possession of these minutes which comprise eight pages of typescript. The Selection Board first defines how it sees its task, taking into account the notice of competition; it concludes that without restricting itself to considering the level of studies followed it must examine the abilities of the candidates, as exhibited by their personal files, in the six areas which it enumerates. However, as these various qualifications are not of the same importance, it will be necessary ‘after examining them separately, not simply to add them together but to compare them by balancing them one against the other’. In fact, after analysing the qualifications of the various candidates in the areas enumerated by it, the Selection Board carefully compares their positions before drawing up the list of suitable candidates in order of merit. Mr Morina makes two criticisms of the operations described above. First, as to method: in order to conform to the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III, the Selection Board should have established the criteria on which it intended to base its assessment before examining the qualifications of each individual candidate; it should also have decided the number of points or the coefficient to be given to each qualification considered by it. The minutes show that, contrary to what the applicant maintains, the Selection Board did define the criteria to be applied before any examination of the individual positions of the candidates. On the other hand, I do not consider that it was obliged to draw up an actual scale not prescribed by any provision; in deciding to balance the various qualifications under examination one against the other, it seems to me to have adopted an irreproachable method. The applicant also challenges the various criteria adopted by the Selection Board and the importance which it attributes to them. His criticisms are varied but they are all based more or less closely on the identification of ‘qualifications’ with ‘university qualifications’. As the notice of competition required candidates to have had a good, general, secondary education, the person who can produce the best certificates is necessarily the person with the highest qualifications. Mr Morina considers that as he is a doctor of law, and is the only candidate able to put forward such a degree, he should have been placed first in the list of suitable candidates. However, the Selection Board considered that it had to look more generally at the ‘merits’ of the candidates in all areas capable of showing their suitability to hold the post competed for, and I think that one cannot in faot limit qualifications to university qualifications. The Selection Board took into account the following factors in its examination: scholastic and university qualifications or equivalent experience in employment—reports on performance of duties previously obtained in the service—results obtained in previous competitions—knowledge of languages—grade and seniority in that grade—seniority in the service. Mr Morina particularly criticizes the Selection Board for having taken into consideration reports on the candidates' performance of their duties, a practice which, he claims, is condemned by the judgment in the Alvino case. Contrary to his belief, your judgment did not touch on this point, which was in fact raised by certain of the applicants. But I personally consider, as I said then, that since it is a matter of weighing up the merits of candidates already in the service, it is perfectly logical to look particularly to the manner in which they have demonstrated these merits in the exercise of their duties. As to the reports made on the applicant, in part flattering and in part reserved, it was for the Board to judge the importance which it considered had to be attributed to such assessment. Mr Morina points out in particular that according to the report of the Selection Board, two reports by his immediate superiors, which he considers to be essential, were not included in his personal file; even supposng there to have been an administrative irregularity, it has no influence on these proceedings, since it is not disputed that the Selection Board was in fact aware of those documents. Finally, another complaint: the Selection Board was not permitted to take account, as it did, of results obtained by the candidates in previous competitions. This practice is certainly blameworthy if the Selection Board merely modelled its assessment on that of its predecessors; but I do not think that it can be criticized for having taken this factor among others into account in order to judge the suitability of those under consideration. Although, by reason of the lively criticisms of such a complete and conscientious report, I have been led to discuss it in some depth, I do not intend, however, to disregard the wide powers which the authors of the Staff Regulations intended to give to the Selection Board. The Board's freedom is only limited in two respects: observance of the provisions of the Staff Regulations and of the notice of competition and its duty not to base its decisions on incorrect findings of fact. But, subject to these reservations, it has the right, within the framework of criteria which it has duly laid down, freely to form its judgment on the respective merits of the different candidates and you cannot substitute your assessment for that of the Board. In this case I consider that the steps which it took are not tainted with any irregularity. As the decision of 19 November 1964 appointing Mrs Louwage to the vacant post has been criticized only on the basis of the procedure followed by the Selection Board, I am of the opinion that you should reject the conclusions seeking its annulment.