Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. I refer the Court to the Report for the Hearing for a summary of the facts and the written procedure^ and propose only to repeat those points that appear to be decisive for the determination of this case.

2. On 7 December 1982, the selection board drew up, in order of merit, the list of the three candidates it considered suitable for the vacant post. On that list, which was notified to staff on the following day, Mr Calvin Williams appeared only in second place. The first place was given to Mr Hartmut Schwiering, and it was him that the Court of Auditors decided to appoint.

3. Those are the circumstances in which Mr Williams brought this action, which was filed at the Court Registry on 18 November 1983, claiming:

4. The Court of Auditors objects that the application is inadmissible, both as being out of time and on the ground of insufficient interest on the part of Mr Williams in the action.

5. Did Mr Schwiering satisfy the requirements for admission to the competition?

6. If, in accordance with this Opinion, the Court holds that Mr Williams's application is admissible and that it is well founded as regards the request for the annulment of Mr Schwiering's appointment to the post made available in the competition at issue, then the Court of Auditors must be made to bear the costs of the proceedings.

7. In consequence my opinion is that:

1 Translated from the French.

2 Extract from the Financial Controller's note dated 28. 2. 1983.