THAT REASON . AS FOR THE PRACTICE OBSERVED BY THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION , IT CANNOT BIND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , ESPECIALLY SINCE IT APPEARS FROM THE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THAT THOSE TWO INSTITUTIONS THEMSELVES CONSIDER THAT THE FOUR-WEEK PERIOD OF NOTICE WHICH THEY GIVE IS PURELY INDICATIVE IN NATURE .
8 ALTHOUGH THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT WAS THUS NOT OBLIGED TO OBSERVE A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF NOTICE , IT MUST NEVERTHELESS BE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE PERIOD OF NOTICE GIVEN IN THIS CASE WAS REASONABLE AND SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF SOUND ADMINISTRATION . IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT TWO WEEKS ' NOTICE IS NOT UNREASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , EVEN IF IT WAS GIVEN IN THE SUMMER-HOLIDAY PERIOD . AN INVITATION TO TAKE PART IN A COMPETITION IS SOLELY DESIGNED TO ENABLE CANDIDATES TO ATTEND THE TESTS . CONSEQUENTLY , THE DUTY OF CARE INCUMBENT ON ANY CANDIDATE IN A COMPETITION REQUIRED MR STRACK TO TAKE ALL THE NECESSARY STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THE INVITATION TO TAKE PART IN THE COMPETITION ACTUALLY ARRIVED AT THE PLACE WHERE HE WAS STAYING OR TO ENABLE HIM TO BE APPRISED OF IT IN GOOD TIME . IT WAS BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO TAKE THOSE PRECAUTIONARY STEPS AND NOT BECAUSE OF THE SHORTNESS OF THE PERIOD OF NOTICE THAT MR STRACK WAS UNABLE TO TAKE PART IN THE WRITTEN TESTS IN COMPETITION NO PE/27/A .
9 SINCE THE PERIOD OF NOTICE OBSERVED BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IS NOT OPEN TO CRITICISM , THE SELECTION BOARD LEGITIMATELY REFUSED TO PERMIT MR STRACK TO TAKE THE TESTS AFTER THE DATE SET FOR THEM . CONSEQUENTLY , THE APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE SELECTION BOARD ' S DECISION MUST BE DISMISSED .
10 SINCE THE CLAIMS RELATING TO COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE ARE BASED ON THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS AS THOSE ADVANCED AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTESTED DECISION , WHICH THIS JUDGMENT HOLDS TO BE LAWFUL , THOSE CLAIMS , ASSUMING THEM TO BE ADMISSIBLE , ARE NECESSARILY UNFOUNDED . AS A RESULT , THOSE CLAIMS MUST ALSO BE DISMISSED .
Decision on costs
COSTS
11 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . HOWEVER , UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITY , THE INSTITUTIONS ARE TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
( 1 ) DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;
( 2 ) ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .