COMPETITION . IN THAT REGARD HE POINTS TO THE FACT THAT DURING THE FIRST COMPETITION HE WAS FORBIDDEN TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES OF HEAD OF THE GREEK TRANSLATION DIVISION, WHEREAS MR TS . CARRIED OUT THOSE DUTIES DURING THE DISPUTED COMPETITION . FURTHERMORE, SINCE MARCH 1983 THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, WHO WAS ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION BOARD, HAS WORKED WITH MR*TS . FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVICE AND PASSED OVER THE APPLICANT .
26 IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT' S ALLEGATIONS ARE CORRECT; THE EXERCISE OF THE ADMINISTRATION' S DISCRETION IN RESPECT OF THE ORGANIZATION OF ITS DEPARTMENTS CANNOT INFLUENCE THE RESULTS OF THE COMPETITION AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS A DEFECT WHICH COULD RENDER THE COMPETITION ILLEGAL .
27 THIS SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE ALSO BE REJECTED .
28 THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE TRANSLATED TEXT GIVEN TO THE PARTICIPANTS TO REVISE AS PART OF THE EXAMINATION WAS A LEGAL TEXT AND NOT, AS WAS STATED IN THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION, A GENERAL TEXT .
29 THAT ARGUMENT HAS NO FOUNDATION IN FACT . IN PARAGRAPH 7*(D ) OF THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION, ON THE "NATURE OF THE TESTS", THE NATURE OF THE TEXT TO BE REVISED WAS NOT SPECIFIED . THE SELECTION BOARD WAS THUS FREE TO CHOOSE TEXTS FOR THE TESTS . FURTHERMORE, A LEGAL TEXT IS NOT WITHOUT RELATION TO THE WORK INVOLVED IN THE POST TO BE FILLED AND TO THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED IN THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION .
30 FINALLY, THE APPLICANT ACCUSES THE SELECTION BOARD OF GOING BEYOND ITS POWERS BY CONSIDERING THE CANDIDATES' PERSONALITIES .
31 THIS SUBMISSION IS ALSO WITHOUT FOUNDATION . IT APPEARS FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE SELECTION BOARD REFERRED TO THE CANDIDATES' PERSONALITIES ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THEIR ABILITY TO CARRY OUT THE TASKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE POST . IN SO DOING THE SELECTION BOARD DID NO MORE THAN ASCERTAIN THE CANDIDATES' QUALIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY VACANCY NOTICE NO 84/81, AMONG WHICH WAS "ABILITY TO DIRECT THE WORK OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT ...".
B - ILLEGALITY OF THE APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE
32 THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE PROPOSAL FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF MR TS . MADE TO THE COUNCIL BY THE BUREAU OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE ON 17 OCTOBER 1984 WAS ILLEGAL . BY PROPOSING MR*TS . WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OTHER CANDIDATES ON THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE EXERCISED DECISION-MAKING POWERS WHICH WERE NOT HIS IN RESPECT OF THE CHOICE FROM THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES DRAWN UP BY THE SELECTION BOARD; FURTHERMORE, THE BUREAU' S PROPOSAL WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN EXAMINATION OF THE COMPARATIVE MERITS OF THE CANDIDATES . SINCE THE APPLICANT AND MR TS . WERE CLASSIFIED EX AEQUO ON THE LIST, SUCH AN EXAMINATION SHOULD HAVE RESULTED IN HIS BEING SELECTED SINCE HE WAS OLDER AND HAD MORE PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE .
33 IT APPEARS