Report for the Hearing delivered in Case 306/85

I — Facts and procedure

1. The applicant, André Huybrechts, an official of the Commission since 1958, has since that date occupied the post of Principal Administrator with a classification in Grade A 4 (and step 8 for the past 10 years).

2. On 26 October 1984 the Commission published Vacancy Notice No COM/1422/84 (drawn up in November 1983) relating to the post of Head of Division VIII-A-3. On the subject of requisite qualifications the notice read as follows:

3. The applicant applied for the post. By a decision of 19 December 1984 the Commission appointed J. Delorme, chef de cabinet of Mr Pisani, at the time Commissioner responsible for development. The applicant was informed in a memorandum dated 5 February 1985 that his application had been unsuccessful.

4. On 19 March 1985 the applicant submitted to the appointing authority a complaint in accordance with Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations seeking the annulment of the aforementioned appointment and the subsequent decision rejecting his application.

5. The applicant's complaint was expressly rejected by letter dated 2 August 1985. Subsequently the applicant made the present application, which was received at the Court Registry on 11 October 1985.

6. Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General the Court (Second Chamber) decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry. It nevertheless requested the Commission to produce copies of Opinion No 48/84 of the Advisory Committee on Appointments to Grades A 2 and A 3 and the particular minutes of the meeting of the Commission at which it was decided to appoint another candidate to the post at issue.

II — Conclusions of the parties

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The Commission contends that the Court should:

Ill — Submissions and arguments of the parties

The applicant makes the following three submissions :

(i) The first submission

1. The applicant claims that prior to the appointment decision and the decision rejecting his application for the post at issue there was no comparison of the merits of the officials who had applied for the post and no comparison of their staff reports.

2. The Commission contends that that submission is based on mistakes of fact. Evidence that the Advisory Committee on Appointments to Grades A 2 and A 3 and the Commission considered the comparative merits of the candidates and their staff reports is to be found in the respective minutes, which were shown to the applicant at the meeting on 7 May 1985. The Commission has no memoranda concerning the transmission of the files of the candidates to the Committee and to the Commissioners.

(ii) Second submission

1. The applicant claims that the contested decisions are unsupported by any statement of reasons or at least by legally acceptable reasons.

2. The Commission sutes that according to the case-law of the Court the appointing authority does not have to give reasons for promotion to applicants who are not promoted.

(iii) Third submission

1. The applicant considers that the power of appointment was not exercised in the present case for its lawful purpose.

2. The Commission contends that the submission of misuse of powers has no factual basis.

1 Language of the Case: French.