Report for the Hearing delivered in Case 417/85

I — Facts and procedure

1. On 24 June 1985 the Court of Auditors published Notice of Internal Competition No CC/A/8/85 to fill a vacancy for an administrator in Career Bracket A 7/A 6. The nature of the duties were, under the direction of a superior official, to manage the administration department and to perform advisory duties in the areas for which that department was responsible.

2. Notice of Internal Competition No CC/A/8/85 laid down the following conditions in relation to experience:

3. After a long career in the private sector the applicant was appointed by decision of 18 April 1983 a probationary official in Grade B 3 at the Court of Auditors. He was established in his post by decision of 18 January 1984.

4. By letter dated 2 August 1985 the Chairman of the Selection Board informed the applicant that he was not eligible to take part in the competition on the following ground:

5. Following a meeting between the Selection Board and the Head of the Personnel Division, the Chairman of the Selection Board sent Mr Maurissen, and the other candidates, a letter dated 12 August 1985 in which he said:

6. Following the receipt of that letter the applicant sent the Chairman of the Selection Board a memorandum dated 30 September 1985 informing him that he considered that the period during which he had performed fulltime duties normally requiring a university diploma was much longer than that required at point IV. 1(b) of the notice of competition as was attested by the descriptions of the nature of the posts which he had included with his application form and two documents which he enclosed with his memorandum for the information of the Selection Board:

7. By a decision of 28 October 1985 the Selection Board reaffirmed its decision to refuse to admit Mr Maurissen to the competition. For the reasons set out in its previous decision and, in addition, on the following grounds :

8. It is the decisions of 2 August and 28 October 1985 refusing Mr Maurissen admission to the competition which are the subject of the present action.

II — Written procedure and conclusions of the parties

By application lodged on 13 December 1985 the applicant brought an action against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities. He claims that the Court should:

The Court of Auditors contends that the Court should:

Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry. It nevertheless requested the Court of Auditors to produce Mr Maurissen's application form together with all the documents included therewith.

III — Summary of the submissions and arguments of the parties

The admissibility of the action is not disputed.

1. The applicant submits that the Selection Board is guilty of an obvious error in assessing his experience. He claims that his experience in an occupation requiring university level education is far longer than that which was required by the notice of competition and fixed by the Selection Board itself at three years.

2. The Court of Auditors relies chiefly on the wide discretion which, according to established case-law of the Court of Justice, a Selection Board enjoys in weighing up the experience of candidates in a competition.

IV — Oral procedure

Mr Maurissen, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, and the Court of Auditors, represented by Jean-Aimé Stoll, acting as Agent, presented oral argument at the sitting on 23 October 1986.

The Advocate General delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 11 December 1986.

1 Language of the Case: French.