30 JUNE 1983 . IN THAT CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE ADDED THAT , IN REPLY TO A QUESTION PUT TO HIM BY THE COURT AT THE HEARING , MR AUDLAND DESCRIBED THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THAT OFFICIAL AND THOSE OF MR MATH AS BEING ' EQUIVALENT ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT ' .
9 FOLLOWING THE LAST-MENTIONED OPINION OF THE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE , THE COMMISSION DECIDED AT ITS MEETING ON 27 JULY 1983 TO APPOINT MR MATH TO THE POST . THE DECISION WAS PUBLISHED IN STAFF COURIER NO 446 OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1983 .
10 ON 20 OCTOBER 1983 THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ASKING FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE IMPLIED DECISION REJECTING HIS CANDIDATURE AND ALSO FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE COMMISSION ' S DECISION TO APPOINT MR MATH TO THE VACANT POST .
11 BY A DECISION DATED 3 NOVEMBER 1983 THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION FORMALLY APPOINTED MR MATH TO THE VACANT POST WITH EFFECT FROM 28 SEPTEMBER 1983 .
12 THE APPLICANT ' S COMPLAINT WAS REJECTED BY A LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION DATED 7 FEBRUARY 1984 . IN THAT LETTER THE COMMISSION STATES IN PARTICULAR THAT THE PROCEDURE FOR FILLING THE VACANT POST WAS PROPERLY CARRIED OUT AND THAT THE COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED , WHERE IT REJECTS A CANDIDATURE , TO STATE THE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION , IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THAT MIGHT PREJUDICE THE UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES .
13 THE APPLICANT PUTS FORWARD A NUMBER OF SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS APPLICATION . HE CONTENDS THAT THE DECISIONS TO APPOINT MR MATH AND TO REJECT HIS OWN CANDIDATURE ARE VOID FOR INFRINGEMENT OF ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS , INFRINGEMENT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 7 , 27 AND 29 , AND MISUSE OF POWERS .
14 THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMISSION ARE AGREED THAT THE MAIN ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPLICATION IS WHETHER THE CONDITIONS FOR OPENING THE SPECIAL RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 29 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WERE FULFILLED IN THIS CASE OR WHETHER THE COMMISSION ' S DECISION TO HAVE RECOURSE TO THAT PROVISION CONSTITUTED A MISUSE OF PROCEDURE . THAT ISSUE SHOULD THEREFORE BE EXAMINED FIRST .
15 ON THAT POINT THE APPLICANT HAS POINTED OUT THAT , AS THE COURT HAS HELD IN PREVIOUS CASES , THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 29 ( 2 ) IS SUBJECT TO VERY STRICT CONDITIONS AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE ( SEE JUDGMENT OF 26 MAY 1971 IN JOINED CASES 45 AND 49/70 BODE V COMMISSION ( 1971 ) ECR 465 ). YET , HE ARGUES , IN THIS CASE THE POST DECLARED VACANT DID NOT IN ANY WAY REQUIRE SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS JUSTIFYING RECRUITMENT UNDER THAT EXTRAORDINARY PROCEDURE AND THE COMMISSION DID NOT EVEN STATE REASONS FOR ITS RECOURSE TO THAT PROCEDURE .
16 ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT , THE DECISION TO HAVE RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 29 ( 2 ) IN FACT REPRESENTED A