FIRST OF ALL THAT THE CONTESTED APPOINTMENT IS VOID FOR MISUSE OF POWERS IN THAT IT WAS MOTIVATED BY THE WISH OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO TRANSFER MR LESIRE, WHO HAD BECOME UNABLE TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF CHAUFFEUR WHICH HE HAD PREVIOUSLY DISCHARGED, TO ANOTHER POST THROUGH THE EXPEDIENT OF THE COMPETITION AT ISSUE .
3 THE FACT THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WISHES TO GIVE AN OFFICIAL, WHO HAS BECOME INCAPABLE OF PERFORMING THE DUTIES WHICH HE PREVIOUSLY DISCHARGED, THE OPPORTUNITY OF OBTAINING ANOTHER POST CORRESPONDING TO HIS CAPABILITIES AND QUALIFICATIONS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AN ILLEGAL MEASURE, SO LONG AS THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE RECRUITMENT OF OFFICIALS ARE OBSERVED .
4 THE APPLICANT DOES NOT CONTEST THE LEGALITY OF THE RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE BUT ALLEGES A NUMBER OF MATTERS CONCERNED ESSENTIALLY WITH HIS QUALITIES AND MERITS AS COMPARED WITH THOSE OF HIS RIVAL .
5 THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT SUCH AS TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE PURSUED AN ILLEGAL PURPOSE AND DISREGARDED THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE .
6 THE SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
7 THE APPLICANT ALSO ASSERTS THAT THE DECISION AT ISSUE IS VOID FOR ILLEGALITY IN THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY MADE ITS DECISION ON THE BASIS OF AN OPINION OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION OF 13 JULY 1971 CONTAINING REMARKS CRITICAL OF HIM MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND BY A HEAD OF DIVISION OF THAT INSTITUTION .
8 SINCE THESE REMARKS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN HIS PERSONAL FILE, REFERENCE TO THEM IN THE COMPETITION PROCEDURE IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 26 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS .
9 ACCORDING TO SUBPARAGRAPH ( A ) OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 26 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS THE PERSONAL FILE OF AN OFFICIAL SHALL CONTAIN, INTER ALIA, " ALL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING HIS ADMINISTRATIVE STATUS AND ALL REPORTS RELATING TO HIS ABILITY, EFFICIENCY AND CONDUCT ".
10 IN PURSUANCE OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE SAME ARTICLE THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENTS MAY NOT BE USED OR CITED BY THE INSTITUTION AGAINST AN OFFICIAL UNLESS THEY WERE COMMUNICATED TO HIM BEFORE THEY WERE FILED .
11 THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROVISIONS IS TO GUARANTEE AN OFFICIAL' S RIGHT OF DEFENCE BY ENSURING THAT DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AFFECTING HIS ADMINISTRATIVE STATUS AND HIS CAREER ARE NOT BASED ON MATTERS CONCERNING HIS CONDUCT WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED IN HIS PERSONAL FILE .
12 ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE OPINION OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION HAD A DECISIVE INFLUENCE ON THE TENOR OF THE DECISION ADVERSELY AFFECTING HIM .
13 HE ASSERTS, IN THIS CONNEXION, THAT HE WAS PLACED FIRST ON THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES DRAWN UP BY THE SELECTION BOARD AND WAS AWARDED TWO POINTS MORE THAN MR LESIRE .
14 IT EMERGES FROM THE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THAT LIST, AND IN PARTICULAR FROM ANNEX 3, THAT IN REGARD TO " SUITABILITY FOR THE PERFORMANCE