ARTICLE 5 OF ANNEX III TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS '.
DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE THE APPLICANT ADMITTED HAVING BEEN THE VICTIM OF AN ERROR OF TERMINOLOGY SINCE THE ONLY DECISION ACTUALLY TAKEN IN RESPECT OF HER WAS TAKEN UNDER THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF THE SAID ARTICLE AND CONSISTED OF NOT ADMITTING HER TO THE TESTS .
THE APPLICANT HAVING THUS ABANDONED THE FIRST HEAD OF HER CONCLUSIONS IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE UPON THE PLEA OF INADMISSIBILITY BASED UPON THE NON-EXISTENCE OF THE DECISION IN QUESTION .
THE SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS THEREFORE CONSISTS ONLY OF THE DECISION NOT TO ADMIT THE APPLICANT TO THE TESTS .
II - AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION
1 . THE DEFENDANT CONSIDERS THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE, FOR THE REASON THAT ONLY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
ARTICLE 91 GIVES THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO ' ANY PERSON TO WHOM THESE STAFF REGULATIONS APPLY '.
P.164
ARTICLE 27 OF THE REGULATIONS APPLIES BY IMPLICATION TO CANDIDATES IN GENERAL COMPETITIONS, EVEN THOSE OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITIES .
IN MENTIONING ' CANDIDATES ', ANNEX III TO THE REGULATIONS CLEARLY APPLIES TO ALL THE CANDIDATES TAKING PART IN THE GENERAL COMPETITIONS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 1(1)(A ) OF THE SAID ANNEX, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITY .
FURTHERMORE, SINCE THE RULES RELATING TO GENERAL COMPETITIONS WERE DRAWN UP FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL CANDIDATES, THESE CANDIDATES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS PERSONS TO WHOM THESE RULES APPLY AND, CONSEQUENTLY, BEING COMPETENT TO BRING A CASE BEFORE THE COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE IN ARTICLE 91, FOR A POSSIBLE INFRINGEMENT OF THE SAID RULES .
THIS PLEA OF INADMISSIBILITY MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
2 . THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT THE COURT SHOULD HOLD ' THE MERE ENUMERATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INFRINGED AND OTHER REASONS FOR ANNULMENT...INSUFFICIENT ' AND HOLDING ' FURTHERMORE THAT THE RESERVATION OF THE RIGHT TO PUT FORWARD FURTHER SUBMISSIONS IS INVALID ', TO REGARD ' AS VALID ONLY THE SUBMISSIONS SET OUT IN THE APPLICATION '.
IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST OF THESE OBJECTIONS, IT APPEARS ON READING THE APPLICATION THAT IN ENUMERATING THE PROVISIONS WHICH SHE CONSIDERS TO HAVE BEEN INFRINGED, AS WELL AS THE REASONS FOR ANNULMENT OF THE DISPUTED DECISION, THE APPLICANT DID NOT INTEND TO PUT FORWARD DISTINCT SUBMISSIONS, BUT ONLY TO PRESENT THE THREE SUBMISSIONS ACTUALLY MADE . THE OBJECTIONS IN QUESTION ARE THUS IRRELEVANT ON THIS POINT .
AS TO THE SECOND OF THE SAID OBJECTIONS, IT IS EQUALLY IRRELEVANT AS THE APPLICANT DID NOT PUT FORWARD ANY NEW SUBMISSIONS DURING THE PROCEEDINGS .
IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THE PRECEDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE APPLICATION IS ADMISSIBLE .
III - ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE
1 . THE FIRST SUBMISSION
THE APPLICANT POINTS OUT THAT CONTRARY TO ARTICLES 107 OF THE ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS AND 110 OF THE EEC AND EAEC STAFF REGULATIONS,