NOTED THAT MR KYPREOS DISPLAYED A NOTABLE IGNORANCE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE , SINCE HE WAS NOT EVEN ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONS PUT TO HIM . CONSEQUENTLY , BY A LETTER OF 2 DECEMBER 1983 , WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS , THE SELECTION BOARD INFORMED MR KYPREOS THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES . THE COUNCIL ADMITS THAT , AS A RESULT OF AN OVERSIGHT , THE ADMINISTRATION OMITTED TO INFORM THE CANDIDATE IN THAT LETTER OF THE REASON FOR HIS EXCLUSION .
4 ON 10 JANUARY 1984 , MR KYPREOS LODGED AN APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE SELECTION BOARD ' S DECISION , CLAIMING THAT NO REASONS WHATEVER WERE GIVEN FOR IT AND THAT IN SUBSTANCE IT WAS UNJUSTIFIED . THE APPLICANT ALSO CONSIDERS THAT HE WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES FOR POLITICAL REASONS SINCE HE HAD COME TO PUBLIC NOTICE BY BEING A CANDIDATE IN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN GREECE AND , IN 1981 , IN THE ELECTION FOR THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT .
5 SINCE THE APPLICATION TO THE COURT HAD THE EFFECT OF DRAWING THE COUNCIL ' S ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT NO REASONS HAD BEEN GIVEN FOR ITS DECISION , IT EXPLAINED TO THE APPLICANT , BY LETTER OF 22 FEBRUARY 1984 , WHY HE HAD BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL AND OFFERED TO PAY HIS LAWYER ' S FEES IF HE WITHDREW HIS APPLICATION . IN HIS REPLY DATED 28 FEBRUARY 1984 , MR KYPREOS INSISTED HOWEVER THAT HIS CASE BE RECONSIDERED BY THE SELECTION BOARD AND THAT HIS MARKS BE RE-EXAMINED . THE COUNCIL ' S DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL THEN CONSULTED THE SELECTION BOARD FOR THE COMPETITION AGAIN . AFTER DELIBERATING THE SELECTION BOARD DECIDED UNANIMOUSLY NOT TO CHANGE THE MARKS GIVEN TO MR KYPREOS AND TO MAINTAIN ITS PREVIOUS DECISION . IN HIS LETTER OF 23 MARCH 1984 , THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION BOARD POINTS OUT THAT THE BOARD CONSIDERED THAT IT HAD ALREADY BEEN TOO GENEROUS IN GIVING MR KYPREOS A MARK OF 5 OUT OF 20 FOR THE ORAL LANGUAGE TEST . BY LETTER OF 29 MARCH 1984 , THE COUNCIL INFORMED THE APPLICANT OF THE SELECTION BOARD ' S DECISION .
6 AFTER RECEIVING THOSE EXPLANATIONS , MR KYPREOS CONTINUED WITH HIS ACTION , CLAIMING THAT THE LANGUAGE TEST HAD ONLY BEEN OPTIONAL , CONTENDING ONCE AGAIN THAT THE SELECTION BOARD ' S ASSESSMENT WAS NOT WELL FOUNDED AND REPEATING HIS ACCUSATION THAT THE REASON FOR HIS EXCLUSION WAS OF A POLITICAL NATURE .
7 SINCE THE APPLICANT DID NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING , THE COUNCIL LIMITED ITSELF TO CONFIRMING THE ARGUMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN ITS PLEADINGS .
8 IT MUST IN THE FIRST PLACE BE STATED THAT THE COUNCIL IS RIGHT IN ITS CONTENTION THAT , AS A RESULT OF THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS , THE SUBMISSION THAT NO REASONS WERE GIVEN FOR THE DECISION IS NOW DEVOID OF PURPOSE