THE POWER TO ALTER OR ANNUL A DECISION BY A SELECTION BOARD .
4 REASONS OF FAIRNESS LAID DOWN BY WAY OF EXCEPTION IN PREVIOUS CASES CANNOT PREVAIL WHEN THE SAID RULE IS WELL ESTABLISHED, IF NOT COMMON KNOWLEDGE .
5 HOWEVER SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE EVENTS TOOK PLACE WHEN THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS WERE APPLICABLE, IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE RULES OF FAIRNESS TO HOLD IT AGAINST THE APPLICANT FOR HAVING FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE CLEARLY LAID DOWN IN ARTICLES 90 AND 91 AS AMENDED .
6 DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE THE COMMISSION COMPLAINED THAT THE APPLICANT HAD NOT SUBMITTED HIS COMPLAINT TO IT UNTIL THE SELECTION BOARD, HAVING FINISHED ITS WORK AND SUBMITTED ITS REPORT TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, WAS FUNCTUS OFFICIO .
7 HOWEVER IT WAS FOR THE COMMISSION TO FORWARD TO THE SELECTION BOARD THE FIRST REQUEST FOR AN EXPLANATION SENT TO IT BY THE APPLICANT ON 28 JUNE 1974, THAT IS TO SAY, BEFORE THE TESTS TOOK PLACE .
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE
8 THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT IN NOT GIVING A SUFFICIENT STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION TO EXCLUDE HIM FROM THE COMPETITION IN QUESTION, THE SELECTION BOARD INFRINGED ARTICLE 25 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND ARTICLE 5 OF ANNEX III .
9 THE REPORT BY THE SELECTION BOARD AND THE LETTER IN CONFIRMATION FROM THE DEFENDANT DATED 5 AUGUST 1974, MENTIONING 'THE LACK OF A UNIVERSITY DEGREE AND EQUIVALENT EXPERIENCE' AND SOME EXPERIENCE APPROPRIATE TO THE DUTIES, WAS SIMPLY REFERRING TO ARTICLE 5 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WITHOUT STATING SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE CRITERIA .
10 THE TASK OF THE SELECTION BOARD CONSISTS OF AT LEAST TWO SEPARATE STAGES, THE FIRST BEING AN EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICATIONS IN ORDER TO SELECT THE CANDIDATES ADMITTED TO THE COMPETITION AND THE SECOND BEING AN EXAMINATION OF THE ABILITIES OF THE CANDIDATES FOR THE POSTS TO BE FILLED IN ORDER TO DRAW UP A LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES .
11 WHILST THE SECOND STAGE CONSISTS MAINLY OF COMPARISON, AND IS ACCORDINGLY COVERED BY THE SECRECY INHERENT IN THE TASK OF A SELECTION BOARD, THE FIRST, PARTICULARLY WHERE THE COMPETITION IS BASED ON FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS, ENTAILS THE MATCHING OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OFFERED BY THE CANDIDATES AGAINST THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION .
12 SINCE THESE MUST BE MATCHED ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE FACTS WHICH ARE MOREOVER KNOWN TO EACH CANDIDATE IN HIS OWN CASE, THE RESULTS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR REASONS .
13 THIS WAS NOT SO IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THE REPORT BY THE SELECTION BOARD AND THE LETTER FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF 5 AUGUST 1974 WERE LIMITED TO SAYING 'THE LEVEL OF YOUR EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN ... MEASURED AGAINST THE CRITERION OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF AN OFFICIAL WHO HAS RECEIVED A UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, SUPPORTED BY A DEGREE, AND IS ENGAGED IN PERFORMING DUTIES APPROPRIATE TO CATEGORY A WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS '.
14 THE DIFFICULTY INHERENT IN SUCH A