HEADINGS . MOREOVER , AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY RULED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 5 APRIL 1979 IN CASE 117/78 ORLANDI V COMMISSION ( 1979 ) ECR 1613 , THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS SEEK TO PROVIDE A GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE MINIMUM LEVEL REQUIRED FOR AN OFFICIAL OF THE GRADE IN QUESTION ACCORDING TO THE NATURE OF THE DUTIES ATTACHING TO THE POSTS AND DO NOT CONCERN THE CONDITIONS OF RECRUITMENT . THOSE CONDITIONS ARE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 29 OF AND ANNEX III TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT THE CONDITIONS FIXED BY THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION IN RELATION TO PARTICULAR POSTS OR PARTICULAR CATEGORIES OF POSTS FROM BEING MORE RIGOROUS THAN THE MINIMUM CONDITIONS ARISING OUT OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF POSTS , WHETHER IN ORDER TO FILL A PARTICULAR VACANT POST OR TO DRAW UP A RESERVE IN ORDER TO FILL POSTS IN A PARTICULAR CATEGORY .
8 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE FIRST SUBMISSION MUST BE REJECTED .
2 . SUBMISSION BASED ON THE FAILURE TO OBSERVE ARTICLE 5 ( 3 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS
9 ARTICLE 5 ( 3 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS PROVIDES THAT ' ' IDENTICAL CONDITIONS OF RECRUITMENT AND SERVICE CAREER SHALL APPLY TO ALL OFFICIALS BELONGING TO THE SAME CATEGORY OR THE SAME SERVICE . ' ' IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBMISSION BASED ON THE FAILURE TO OBSERVE THAT PROVISION , MR LIPMAN ON THE ONE HAND CLAIMS THAT THE NOTICE OF INTERNAL COMPETITION NO COM/A/4/81 PUBLISHED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE CONTESTED NOTICE DID NOT REQUIRE THE CANDIDATES TO BE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES , SO RULING OUT ANY CONDITION CONCERNING THE TIME WHEN THEIR PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE WAS AQUIRED AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , CONTENDS THAT OTHER CANDIDATES WERE ADMITTED TO THE TESTS IN COMPETITION NO COM/A/325 , EVEN THOUGH THEIR PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE WAS NOT RELATED TO THE OPTION SELECTED .
10 THOSE TWO ARGUMENTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . FIRST , MR LIPMAN CANNOT RELY TO ANY PURPOSE UPON CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION TO ANOTHER COMMISSION COMPETITION , WHICH WAS ORGANIZED ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT PROCEDURES AND WHICH PURSUED A DIFFERENT AIM , IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM , FORMULATED IN HIS CONCLUSIONS , THAT THE DECISION OF THE SELECTION BOARD IN COMPETITION NO COM/A/325 SHOULD BE ANNULLED ; MOREOVER , THE SECOND ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBMISSION IS IN ANY EVENT INVALID SINCE IT CONCERNS THE NATURE OF THE PRATICAL EXPERIENCE AND NOT WHETHER OR NOT THAT EXPERIENCE WAS OBTAINED AFTER GRADUATION .
11 CONSEQUENTLY , AND WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO ORDER THE MEASURE OF INQUIRY REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT IN RELATION TO THE SECOND PART OF THE SUBMISSION , THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO REJECT THAT SUBMISSION .
3 . SUBMISSION RELATING TO THE BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY
12 IN SUPPORT OF THIS SUBMISSION , THE APPLICANT RELIES UPON THE FACT THAT THE