IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION .
25 THE DEFENDANT OBJECTS THAT THE SELECTION BOARD ' S ASSESSMENT OF THE TESTS REPRESENTS A VALUE JUDGMENT WHICH CANNOT BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT SINCE ITS JURISDICTION EXTENDS ONLY TO CHECKING THE LEGALITY OF THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED . IN ANY EVENT , IT DENIES THAT THE SELECTION BOARD COMMITTED A FACTURAL ERROR . MOREOVER , IT OBSERVES THAT THE BOARD APPLIED PURELY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA .
26 AS REGARDS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION , ON WHICH THE APPLICANT RELIES , THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT NEITHER THE CONDITIONS OF THE COMPETITION , NOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT WAS HELD , NOR THE SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT JUSTIFY THE APPLICATION OF THAT PRINCIPLE SINCE THE RESULT OF HER TEST WAS BROUGHT TO HER NOTICE AT THE LATEST IN THE COURSE OF HER TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF 8 APRIL 1981 WITH THE ADMINISTRATION .
27 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT THAT A SELECTION BOARD FOR A COMPETITION ENJOYS A WIDE DISCRETION AND THAT THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW ITS VALUE JUDGMENTS . HOWEVER , THE BOARD MUST PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE CRITERIA WHICH ARE KNOWN TO EACH OF THE CANDIDATES AND IT MUST STATE ADEQUATELY THE GROUNDS ON WHICH ITS DECISION IS BASED . IT IS FOR THAT REASON THAT INDENT ( E ) OF THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF ANNEX III TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION , DRAWN UP BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY , MUST SPECIFY , INTER ALIA , WHERE THE COMPETITION IS ON THE BASIS OF TESTS , OF WHAT KIND THEY WILL BE AND HOW THEY WILL BE MARKED .
28 IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT CAREER OF OFFICIALS OF RECRUITMENT BY WAY OF COMPETITION IT MUST BE ENSURED THAT CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT WHICH ARE OBJECTIVE AND EQUAL FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES ARE STRICTLY APPLIED . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE CANDIDATES IN A COMPETITION ARE ENTITLED TO EXPECT THAT TESTS WHICH TAKE PLACE SIMULTANEOUSLY IN DIFFERENT PLACES ARE ENTIRELY IDENTICAL AND , IN ADDITION , THEY SHOULD RECEIVE FORMAL AND ACCURATE INFORMATION AS TO THE RESULT OF THE TESTS WHICH THEY HAVE TAKEN .
29 WHERE IRREGULARITIES OR ERRORS HAVE OCCURRED IN THE COURSE OF A COMPETITION AND CANNOT BE RECTIFIED BY A REPETITION OF THE TESTS , WITH THE RESULT THAT THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS THE APPLICATION OF A CORRECTIVE FACTOR IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TESTS , THAT FACTOR MUST BE APPLIED UNEQUIVOCALLY AND THE PERSON CONCERNED IS ENTITLED TO BE INFORMED OF THE CRITERIA ADOPTED .
30 IN THIS INSTANCE , IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE TESTS ORGANIZED IN BRUSSELS AND LUXEMBOURG WERE NOT ENTIRELY IDENTICAL AND THAT , IN CONSEQUENCE , THE BOARD MADE COMPENSATORY ADJUSTMENTS IN MARKING THE SCRIPTS . THE ADMINISTRATION MERELY DECLARED THAT THE SCRIPTS OF THE CANDIDATES WHO TOOK THE TEST IN