PROCEDURE FOR FILLING THAT POST BY PROMOTION OR TRANSFER . ELEVEN PERSONS, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT, APPLIED FOR THE POST . EIGHT OF THEM WERE CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION, INCLUDING MR FUMAGALLI, WHO HAD BEEN ON THE LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION SINCE 1984 . ON 20 JUNE 1985 THE LIST OF CANDIDATES WAS SENT TO THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION AND ON 4 JULY 1985 HE PROPOSED THE APPOINTMENT OF MR FUMAGALLI, ON THE GROUND THAT HE ALREADY HAD "THE EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR THIS POST IN A SPECIFIC FIELD ". BY THE DECISION OF 17 JULY 1985, REFERRED TO ABOVE, MR FUMAGALLI WAS APPOINTED TO THE POST .
3 REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT FOR THE HEARING FOR THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES, WHICH ARE MENTIONED OR DISCUSSED HEREINAFTER ONLY IN SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY FOR THE REASONING OF THE COURT .
4 ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE DECISION IN QUESTION CONSTITUTES A MISUSE OF POWERS IN SO FAR AS IT SERVED ONLY TO "REGULARIZE" MR FUMAGALLI' S POSITION . SHE POINTS OUT THAT MR FUMAGALLI WAS ASSIGNED TO THE POST IN QUESTION ON 13 OCTOBER 1984 AND THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY DID NOT PUBLISH THE VACANCY NOTICE UNTIL 3 JUNE 1985, MORE THAN SEVEN MONTHS LATER . SHE ALSO REFERS TO STATEMENTS TO THAT EFFECT MADE TO HER BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION, MR TAYLOR . CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICANT CONSIDERS THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY DID NOT CONSIDER THE COMPARATIVE MERITS OF THE CANDIDATES; SUCH CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT SHE HAD THE BEST QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE POST IN QUESTION .
5 THE PARLIAMENT DENIES THAT THERE WAS ANY MISUSE OF POWERS AND OBSERVES THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PUT FORWARD NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER SUBMISSION . IT STATES THAT THE BELATED PUBLICATION OF THE VACANCY NOTICE WAS DUE TO "ADMINISTRATIVE DELAYS ". FINALLY, IT SUBMITS THAT, CONTRARY TO THE APPLICANT' S ASSERTIONS, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY DID COMPARE THE MERITS OF THE CANDIDATES AND COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE VACANCY NOTICE .
6 IT SHOULD FIRST BE NOTED THAT, AS THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD, A DECISION MAY AMOUNT TO A MISUSE OF POWERS ONLY IF IT APPEARS, ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE, RELEVANT AND CONSISTENT INDICATIONS, TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE STATED ( SEE IN PARTICULAR THE JUDGMENT OF 21 JUNE 1984 IN CASE 69/83 LUX V COURT OF AUDITORS (( 1984 )) ECR 2447 ).
7 THERE ARE NO SUCH INDICATIONS IN THIS CASE . ALTHOUGH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PREFERABLE FOR THE VACANCY NOTICE FOR THE POST IN QUESTION TO HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED SOONER, AND ALTHOUGH THE OCCUPATION OF THE POST BY MR FUMAGALLI WAS INDEED LIKELY TO GIVE HIM AN ADVANTAGE IN A SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE FOR FILLING THE POST, THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE PARLIAMENT DID IN FACT USE THE PROMOTION PROCEDURE FOR A PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT OF APPOINTING THE MOST SUITABLE