QUALIFICATIONS INCLUDED ' A REGRETTABLE BUT FLAGRANT ERROR ' BECAUSE , ACCORDING TO HIM , HIS UNIVERSITY DEGREES AND 20 YEARS ' PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AS AN AUDITOR COULD NOT BE DISPUTED .
7 ON 23 JANUARY 1984 , THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY REJECTED MR DE SANTIS ' S COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT ARTICLES 28 TO 30 AND ANNEX III OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , WHICH GOVERN THE ORGANIZATION OF COMPETITION PROCEDURES , DID NOT PERMIT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE IN ANY WAY WITH THE WORK OF THE SELECTION BOARD . ACCORDING TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY , MR DE SANTIS SHOULD HAVE SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT DIRECTLY TO THE SELECTION BOARD .
8 AFTER THE REJECTION OF HIS COMPLAINT , MR DE SANTIS BROUGHT THE PRESENT ACTION , THE ADMISSIBILITY OF WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED , FOR ANNULMENT OF THE REJECTION OF HIS APPLICATION BY THE SELECTION BOARD AND , IN SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY , ANNULMENT OF THE EXPRESS REJECTION OF HIS APPLICATION BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY . HE ALSO SEEKS ANNULMENT OF THE APPOINTMENTS MADE ON THE BASIS OF COMPETITION NO CC/A/5/83 .
9 IN SUPPORT OF HIS ACTION , THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT THE SELECTION BOARD DID NOT GIVE SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR ITS DECISION , THAT IT DEPARTED FROM THE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY OTHER SELECTION BOARDS WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC REASONS FOR SO DOING , THAT ITS DECISION CONSTITUTED A MISUSE OF POWER AND , FINALLY , THAT IT INFRINGED THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION AND EQUALITY OF TREATMENT .
10 WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM FOR ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION REJECTING HIS APPLICATION , MR DE SANTIS ' S FIRST TWO SUBMISSIONS , WHICH BOTH DEAL WITH THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE SELECTION BOARD FOR A COMPETITION IS OBLIGED TO GIVE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION AND WHICH IN REALITY ARE MERELY TWO DISTINCT ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME SUBMISSION , MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER .
11 MR DE SANTIS RELIES FIRSTLY ON THE JUDGMENT OF 13 NOVEMBER 1978 ( JOINED CASES 4 , 19 AND 28/78 SALERNO AND OTHERS V COMMISSION ( 1978 ) ECR 2403 ) IN SUPPORT OF THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LETTER OF 19 AUGUST 1983 FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION BOARD DID NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT TO STATE THE REASONS FOR THE BOARD ' S DECISION BECAUSE IT MERELY REFERRED TO SECTION IV.A.2 . OF THE COMPETITION NOTICE , DEALING WITH THE WAY IN WHICH MARKS WERE TO BE AWARDED IN RESPECT OF QUALIFICATIONS , AND THEREFORE DID NOT PERMIT THE CANDIDATE TO DETERMINE FROM WHAT POINT OF VIEW HIS QUALIFICATIONS HAD BEEN JUDGED INSUFFICIENT .
12 THE COURT OF AUDITORS REPLIES TO THAT BY STATING THAT , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF 12 OCTOBER 1978 IN CASE 86/77 ( DITTERICH V COMMISSION ( 1978 ) ECR 1855 ), THE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO A STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR ANY MEASURE ADVERSELY AFFECTING A PERSON MUST BE ASSESSED NOT MERELY WITH REFERENCE TO THE MEASURE ITSELF BUT ALSO WITH REFERENCE