JUDGMENT OF 14. 12. 1965 — CASE 11/65 MORINA v PARLIAMENT

In Case 11/65

THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: W. Strauß, President of Chamber, A. M. Donner and R. Monaco (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate-General: J. Gand Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts

I — Nature of duties

II — Competition

III — Qualifications required

IV — Knowledge of languages

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

Admissibility

The substance of the case

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

Admissibility

The substance of the case

Costs

I —. Facts

1. The applicant was engaged by the European Parliament on 17 November 1958 under a so-called Brussels contract at a salary corresponding, by assimilation to the Staff Regulations of the ECSC, to Grade C12 (now C3).

2. By notice of 1 October 1964 Internal Competition No B 10 on the basis of qualifications was announced to fill a vacant post of administrative assistant (career bracket B5-B4) in the Directorate-General of Administration (Personnel Division). The vacancy notice was worded as follows:

3. In February 1965 Mrs Louwage was appointed to Grade B4 with effect from 1 December 1964.

II —. Conclusions of the parties

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

(a). internal (competition No B 10;

(b). The decision of 19 November 1964, by virtue of which Mrs Marie-Thérèse Louwage was appointed to Grade B5 in the vacant post with effect from 1 December 1964.

(c). The decision or 3 February 1965, by virtue of which Mrs Marie-Thérèse Louwage was appointed to Grade B4, again with effect from 1 December 1964.

1. The defendant claims first of all that the application is inadmissible in so far as it seeks the annulment of Internal Competition No B 10, as the applicant cannot impugn a collection of measures but may only request the annulment of an individual measure the legality of which is called into question.

2. The defendant observes that the application is in principle admissible inas-much as it is directed against the decision appointing Mrs Louwage to Grade B5. However, no actual submission of annulment is put forward against that decision. The applicant's arguments, namely that that decision did not take into account the fact that his qualifications are superior to those of Mrs Louwage and that the illegal nature of the measure stems from the irregularity of the competition, are not supported by any specific submission.

3. The defendant maintains that the application is inadmissible in so far as it impugns the list of suitable candidates drawn up by the Selection Board, which has an unfettered discretion in the matter. Consequently, it is irrelevant to discuss the value of the applicant's qualifications and his offer of proof should be rejected as being inadmissible.

4. The defendant claims, finally, that the application is inadmissible in so far as it concerns the alleged promotion of Mrs Louwage to Grade B4. The applicant is in fact classified in Category C and, as he is not eligible for promotion within Category B, has no legal interest in seeking the annulment of that appointment.

1. The irregularity of Internal Competition No B 10 and the appointment of Mrs Louwage to the vacant post

2. The irregularity of the appointment of Mrs Louwage to Grade B4

IV —. Procedure

1. The defendant raises the objection of admissibility against the conclusions concerning Internal Competition No B 10, on the ground that the applicant cannot request the annulment of a competition, that is to say, of a collection of measures, but only of an individual act adversely affecting him.

2. The applicant challenges the decision or the Secretary-General or 19 November 1964 by virtue of which Mrs Marie-Thérèse Louwage was appointed to the vacant post and was classified in Grade B5 with effect from 1 December 1964.

3. Further, the applicant requests the annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of 5 February 1965 which rescinds and replaces the prior decision of 19 November 1964 by appointing Mrs Marie-Thérèse Louwage to Grade B4.

4. The applicant claims finally that the Court should order Internal Competition No B 10 to be reheld on the conditions previously laid down and between the same persons who appeared in the list of suitable candidates.

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community and the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Economic Community and of the European Atomic Energy Community, especially Articles, 29, 30, 31, 90 and 91 as well as Annex III thereto; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Article 69; THE COURT (Second Chamber) hereby:

1 Annuls the decision of 5 February 1965 appointing Mrs Marie-Thérèse Louwage to Grade B4;

2 Orders the defendant to pay the costs of the action.