COMMISSION FROM 1 FEBRUARY 1965 UNTIL 31 JULY 1974 , THAT IS TO SAY , A PERIOD OF NINE YEARS AND SIX MONTHS .
10 ON A COMPARISON OF THE TERMS OF THE FINAL DECISION OF THE COMPETITION SELECTION BOARD REJECTING HER CANDIDACY ON 24 SEPTEMBER 1979 WITH THE DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY OF 21 NOVEMBER 1979 IT THEREFORE APPEARS THAT , OBJECTIVELY , THE APPLICANT HAS AN EXPERIENCE OF SECRETARIAL WORK THE DURATION OF WHICH SATISFIES THAT REQUIRED IN THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION . IT SHOULD ALSO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE APPLICANT ON HER APPLICATION FORM FOR COMPETITION NO COM/BS74/79 , AND THE TEXT OF HER COMPLAINT OF 22 AUGUST 1979 REPRESENTED THAT SITUATION CORRECTLY .
11 IT MUST THEREFORE BE HELD THAT THE COMPETITION SELECTION BOARD MADE ITS DECISION ON THE BASIS OF AN ASSESSMENT OF THE APPLICANT ' S ADMINISTRATIVE STATUS WHICH WAS OBJECTIVELY INACCURATE . NEVERTHELESS , THE FACT REMAINS THAT FOR HER PART THE APPLICANT DID NOT DO HER UTMOST TO INFORM THE SELECTION BOARD OF THE STEPS SHE HAD TAKEN IN ORDER TO HAVE HER EMPLOYMENT STATUS CORRECTED . IN HER APPLICATION FORM SHE DID NOT MENTION THE REQUEST SHE HAD SUBMITTED ON 28 FEBRUARY 1979 UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , AND IN HER COMPLAINT OF 22 AUGUST 1979 SHE DID NOT MENTION THE COMPLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ON 17 JULY 1979 .
12 THEREFORE THE SELECTION BOARD , WHICH WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF A COMPETITION FOR WHICH THERE WAS A LARGE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES , IS NOT TO BE CRITICIZED FOR NOT TAKING THE INITIATIVE OF CLARIFYING OF ITS OWN MOTION AN ADMINISTRATIVE STATUS WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED WHEN IT MADE ITS DECISION . NEVERTHELESS , SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT ON ITS PART HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED , THE DECISION IN QUESTION MUST BE ANNULLED IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE ADMINISTRATION TO TAKE A FRESH DECISION BASED ON THE POSITION FINALLY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ' S DECISION OF 21 NOVEMBER 1979 .
Decision on costs
13 THE QUESTION OF COSTS SHOULD BE SETTLED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING . ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT HAS OBTAINED THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF WHICH SHE COMPLAINS , IT WOULD BE INEQUITABLE TO ALLOW HER TO PLACE ON THE COMMISSION THE BURDEN OF THE COSTS OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH SHE COULD HAVE AVOIDED BY TAKING CARE TO INFORM THE SELECTION BOARD OF THE CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS SHE HAD COMMENCED THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS IN ORDER TO HAVE HER ADMINISTRATIVE STATUS RECTIFIED . THE POWER GIVEN TO THE COURT UNDER THE FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE SHOULD THEREFORE BE EXERCISED AND THE PARTIES SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PAY THEIR OWN COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . ANNULS THE DECISION OF THE