AS TO THE PERIOD DURING WHICH , AND THE CAPACITY IN WHICH , MR CONSTANTINOPOULOS WORKED FOR EXANTAS .
21 THE WITNESSES GIVING EVIDENCE WERE CONSISTENT IN STATING THAT FROM 1972 TO 1980 MR CONSTANTINOPOULOS HAD LIVED PARTLY IN BERLIN AND PARTLY IN GREECE AND HAD THROUGHOUT THAT PERIOD WORKED FULL-TIME FOR EXANTAS AS AN EXTERNAL READER . THE POST HAD ENTAILED THE TRANSLATION OF PUBLICATIONS OR PARTS THEREOF AND THE SUPERVISION , REVISION AND COLLATION OF TRANSLATIONS BY OTHER TRANSLATORS . MR CONSTANTINOPOULOS FURTHER DECLARED , AS A WITNESS , THAT ALTHOUGH HE HAD ENROLLED AT THE FREE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN BETWEEN 1972 AND 1975 HE HAD NOT ATTENDED MORE THAN TWO OR THREE SEMINARS A WEEK , WHICH HAD NOT PREVENTED HIM FROM DEVOTING MOST OF HIS TIME TO TRANSLATION WORK .
22 THE COURT HAS ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF A STATEMENT BY MR CONSTANTINOPOULOS WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE COUNCIL TO THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CASE , EXPLAINING THAT HE HAD CONFINED HIMSELF , FOR EACH OF THE TWO COMPETITIONS , TO PRODUCING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO COVER THE MINIMUM CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR ADMISSION TO THE COMPETITION .
23 IN THE LIGHT OF THAT EVIDENCE IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT , CONTRARY TO THE STATEMENTS IN HIS APPLICATION FORM FOR THE COMPETITION AT ISSUE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS , MR CONSTANTINOPOULOS DID NOT WORK FULL-TIME FOR EXANTAS LIMITED , PUBLISHERS , IN THE TRANSLATION AND REVISION OF TEXTS THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD FROM 1972 UNTIL HIS ENTRY INTO THE SERVICE OF THE COUNCIL .
24 SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS THEREFORE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CANDIDATE APPOINTED HAD NOT , BY 23 FEBRUARY 1983 ( THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION ), FULFILLED THE CONDITION OF AT LEAST 10 YEARS ' RELEVANT EXPERIENCE REQUIRED FOR ADMISSION TO THE COMPETITION , THIS SUBMISSION MUST LIKEWISE BE REJECTED .
THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION 25 SINCE IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION TO APPOINT MR CONSTANTINOPOULOS WAS NOT VITIATED BY ILLEGALITY , THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGE ALLEGEDLY INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE CONTESTED DECISION MUST ALSO BE REJECTED .
Decision on costs
COSTS
26 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS IF THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR IN THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY ' S PLEADING . HOWEVER , ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT THE INSTITUTIONS MUST BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS IN ACTIONS BROUGHT BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( THIRD CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
( 1 ) DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;
( 2 ) ORDERS EACH PARTY TO BEAR ITS OWN COSTS .