IT IS CLEAR FROM ITS REPORT THAT BY INSISTING THAT THE NECESSARY EXPERIENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED OVER A PERIOD OF AT LEAST SIX YEARS THE SELECTION BOARD WISHED TO ESTABLISH A CERTAIN BALANCE BETWEEN THIS PERIOD AND THAT REQUIRED FOR UNIVERSITY STUDIES .
ON THE ONE HAND IT IS UNREASONABLE TO TREAT THIS PERIOD AS THE NORMAL DURATION OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES AND ON THE OTHER THE SELECTION BOARD HAS ADOPTED A CRITERION WHICH IS COMPLETELY FOREIGN TO THE PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED .
THIS PROBLEM MAY BE FORMULATED IN THE FOLLOWING WAY : BY WHAT STANDARDS SHOULD EQUIVALENT EXPERIENCE IN EMPLOYMENT BE ASSESSED IN THE CASE OF CANDIDATES WHO DO NOT POSSESS A UNIVERSITY DEGREE?
IT IS SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE - AS THE SELECTION BOARD HAS IN FACT DONE - EXPERIENCE IN EMPLOYMENT ACQUIRED THROUGH PROMOTION TO ACTIVITIES AND DUTIES NORMALLY RESERVED FOR THE HOLDERS OF UNIVERSITY DEGREES .
ALTHOUGH IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO REQUIRE SUCH EXPERIENCE TO BE SPREAD OVER A CERTAIN PERIOD, THIS REQUIREMENT MUST BE BASED ON MORE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA THAN THE DURATION OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES .
THUS, BY INTRODUCING THE REQUIREMENT IN DISPUTE THE SELECTION BOARD ACTED ULTRA VIRES IN SUCH A WAY AS TO VITIATE THE PREPARATION OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES ADMITTED TO THE COMPETITION .
THE COMPETITION IS THEREFORE ILLEGAL AND CANNOT PROVIDE A LEGAL BASIS FOR APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS .
THE APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE COMMISSION ON THE BASIS OF THE RESULTS OF COMPETITION NO 165-A MUST THEREFORE BE ANNULLED .
APPLICATION 19/64
APPLICATION 19/64 HAS LOST ITS PURPOSE AS A RESULT OF THE OUTCOME OF APPLICATION 18/64 .
Decision on costs
UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
THE DEFENDANT IN CASE 18/64 HAS FAILED IN ITS PLEAS AND MUST THEREFORE BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69(5 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE WHERE A CASE DOES NOT PROCEED TO JUDGMENT THE COSTS SHALL BE IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT .
SINCE APPLICATION 19/64 HAS LOST ITS PURPOSE NO DECISION NEED BE MADE ON THE SUBSTANCE .
Operative part
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DECLARES THAT APPLICATION 18/64 IS WELL FOUNDED;
2 . ANNULS INTERNAL COMPETITION NO 165-A AND THE APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE COMMISSION ON THE BASIS THEREOF;
3 . DECLARES THAT NO DECISION NEED BE GIVEN IN APPLICATION 19/64;
4 . ORDERS THE DEFENDANT IN APPLICATION 18/64 TO PAY THE COSTS;
5 . ORDERS THAT THE PARTIES IN APPLICATION 19/64 SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .