ON 9 DECEMBER 1986,
GIVES THE FOLLOWING
JUDGMENT
Grounds
1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 11 OCTOBER 1985 ANDRE HUYBRECHTS, A PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATOR IN THE ENERGY, MINING AND INDUSTRY DIVISION OF DIRECTORATE-GENERAL VIII ( DEVELOPMENT ) OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF 19 DECEMBER 1984 APPOINTING ANOTHER CANDIDATE TO THE POST OF HEAD OF THE SAID DIVISION AND THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION REJECTING HIS CANDIDATURE FOR THAT POST .
2 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIMS THE APPLICANT BASICALLY MAKES THE FOLLOWING THREE SUBMISSIONS :
( I ) INFRINGEMENT OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 45 ( 1 ) THEREOF, INASMUCH AS THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPARATIVE MERITS OF THE CANDIDATES;
( II ) INFRINGEMENT OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 5 ( 3 ), 7 ( 1 ), 27 AND 45 ( 1 ), AND DISREGARD OF ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE DUTY TO HAVE REGARD TO THE APPLICANT' S INTERESTS, INASMUCH AS THERE ARE NO LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE GROUNDS FOR THE CONTESTED DECISIONS;
( III ) MISUSE OF POWERS .
3 REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT FOR THE HEARING FOR FURTHER PARTICULARS OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES, WHICH ARE MENTIONED OR DISCUSSED HEREINAFTER ONLY IN SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY FOR THE REASONING OF THE COURT .
THE FIRST SUBMISSION
4 THE APPLICANT STATES THAT TO HIS KNOWLEDGE NEITHER THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS TO GRADES A*2 AND A*3 NOR THE COMMISSION, AS APPOINTING AUTHORITY, HAD BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THE PERSONAL FILES OF THE CANDIDATES .
5 IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THAT SUBMISSION THE COURT REQUESTED THE COMMISSION TO PRODUCE COPIES OF THE OPINION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING AT WHICH THE COMMISSION REACHED A DECISION ON THE POST IN ISSUE . THE DOCUMENTS SO PRODUCED CONFIRM BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE COMMISSION AS APPOINTING AUTHORITY CONSIDERED THE COMPARATIVE MERITS OF THE CANDIDATES ON THE BASIS OF NOT ONLY THEIR APPLICATIONS BUT ALSO THEIR PERSONAL FILES .
6 IN VIEW OF THAT CONFIRMATION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE FIRST SUBMISSION IS UNSUBSTANTIATED .
SECOND SUBMISSION
7 THE APPLICANT STATES THAT OF ALL THE CANDIDATES HE WAS THE OLDEST, THE MOST SENIOR IN THE DEPARTMENT AND IN GRADE A*4 AND HAD THE LONGEST EXPERIENCE IN THE RELEVANT FIELD . HE WAS FIRST DEPUTY AND THEN ACTING HEAD OF DIVISION FOR 16 MONTHS, HIS LAST STAFF REPORT WAS FULL OF PRAISE AND THE DIRECTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DIVISION CONSIDERED THAT HE WAS BY FAR THE BEST CANDIDATE . THE DUTY TO HAVE REGARD TO HIS INTERESTS DEMANDED THAT AFTER 26 YEARS OF FAITHFUL SERVICE IN GRADE A*4 HE SHOULD BE PROMOTED TO GRADE A*3, THUS ALLOWING HIM TO ACCOMPLISH A NORMAL CAREER . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPOINTMENT OF ANOTHER APPLICANT REQUIRES A