Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 8 March 1988

1 Translated from the French.

2 Judgment of 16 June 1971 in Case 61/70 G. Vistosi v Commission [1971] ECR 535, paragraph 14; see also judgment of 21 June 1984 in Case 69/83 C. Lux v Court of Auditors [1984] ECR 2447, paragraph 17.

3 See judgment of 16 June 1971 G Vistosi v Commission, cited above, paragraph 15; see also judgment of 15 December 1965 in Case 15/76 W. Klaer v High Authority of the ECSC [1965] ECR 1045, especially p. 1054, sixth paragraph; and judgment of 23 January 1986 in Case 173/84 L. Rasmussen v Commission [1986] ECR 197, paragraph 24.

4 See judgment of 16 June 1971 G. Vistosi v Commission, cited above, paragraph 16.

5 See in this regard, concerning the post of a director-general in Grade A 1, judgment of 28 May 1970 in Case 36/69 F. Peco v Commission [1970] ECR 361, paragraph 15, and concerning the posts of a director and a chief adviser, judgment of 13 May 1970 in Case 46/69 A. Reinarz v Commission [1970] ECR 275, paragraph 10.

6 See in this regard judgment of 20 May 1976 in Case 66/75 M. Macevicius v European Parliament [1976] ECR 593, paragraph 16.

7 Subsequently amended and published in a coordinated version in Staff Notices 1 A No 373 of 9 July 1982.

8 Judgment of 28 March 1968 in Case 33/67 D. Kurrer v Council [1968] ECR 127, especially p. 135.

9 Judgment of 20 May 1980 in Joined Cases 33 and 75/79 R. Kuhner v Commission [1980] ECR 1677, at p. 1697, paragraph 20.

10 Emphasis added.

11 Emphasis added.

12 Judgment of 14 July 1983 in Case 176/82 T. Nebe v Commission [1983] ECR 2475, paragraph 21; similarly, judgment of 21 June 1984 C. Lux v Court of Auditors, cited above, paragraph 36.

13 Judgment of 12 October 1978 in Case 86/77 K. Ditterich v Commission [1978] ECR 1855, paragraph 40; similarly judgment of 14 July 1977 in Case 61/76 J.-J. Geist v Commission [1977] ECR 1419, paragraph 23; see also judgment of 14 July 1983 T. Nebe v Commission, cited above, paragraph 21; and judgments of 29 October 1981 in Case 125/80 G. Anting v Commission [19811 ECR 2539, paragraph 13, and of 28 May 1980 r. Kuhner v Commission, cited above, paragraph, second sentence.

14 Judgment of 12 October 1978 K. Ditterich v Commission, cited above, paragraph 42; judgment of 14 July 1977 J. - J Geist v Commission, cited above, paragraph 26.

15 Judgment of 29 October 1981 G. Arning v Commission, cited above, p. 2554, paragraph 17.

16 Judgment of 20 May 1980 r. Kuhner v Commission, cited above, p. 1698, paragraph 25.

17 A specialized department is virtually the same as a division except that it is headed by an A 4 instead of an A 3.

18 Judgment of 4 February 1987 in Case 417/85 H. Mannisen v Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 551, paragraph 12; in this regard, see judgment of 28 May 1980 r. Kuhner v Commission, cited above, paragraph 22.

19 Judgment of 16 December 1987 in Case 111/86 E. DeEmche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, paragraph 26.

20 See judgment of 12 February 1987 in Case 233/85 A. Bonino v Commission [1987] ECR 739, paragraph 5.

21 See in this regard judgment of 12 July 1979 in Case 124/78 H. List v Commission [1979] ECR 2499, paragraph 13; also judgment of 11 July 1968 in Case 16/67 H. Labeyrie v Commission [1968] ECR 293, especially p. 302 (a) first and second sentences; judgment of 14 June 1979 in Case 18/78 Mrs V. v Commission [1978] ECR 2093, paragraph 18.

22 See judgment in H. List v Commission, cited above.

23 See judgment of 6 May 1969 in Case 21/68 A. Huybrechli v Commission [1969] ECR 85, paragraph 8; and judgment of 13 May 1970 in Case 46/69 A. Reinarz v Commission [1970] ECR 275, paragraph 5.

24 See for example judgment of 21 June 1984 C. Lux v Court of Auditors, cited above, paragraph 30; similarly, judgment of 18 June 1987 in Case 307/85 A. Gavanos v Economic and Social Committee of the EEC [1987] ECR 2435, paragraph 37.

25 As regards applications that are manifestly unfounded see for example judgment of 10 January 1980 in Case 116/78 R A. Bellintani and Others v Commission [1980] ECR 23; Order of 11 December 1986 in Case 25/86 B. Suss v Commission [1986] ECR 3929; as regards applications that are manifestly inadmissible, see for example judgment of 17 March 1983 in Case 252/81 M. Macevicius v Parliament [1983] ECR 867; also judgment of 6 October 1983 in Joined Cases 118 to 123/82 M. G. Celant v Commission [1983] ECR 95; judgment of 12 July 1984 in Case 227/83 S. Moussis v Commission [1984] ECR 3133; judgment of 21 January 1987 in Case 204/85 V. Stroghili v Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 389.

26 The applicant is ordered to pay the costs if in pursuing his case he makes excessive charges — see in this connection judgment of 1 June 1983 in Joined Cases 36, 37 and 218/81 Selon v Commission [1983] ECR 1789, paragraph 59, or if he makes injurious allegations' not withdrawn until the hearing, see in this regard for example judgment of 17 May 1984 in Case 338/82 C. Albertini and M. Montagnam v Commission [1984] ECR 2123.

27 See for example Orders of 9 June 1980 in Cases 123/80 R and 123/80 C A. A. Broekhuyse v Parliament [1980] ECR 1793 and 1789, and judgment of 15 January 1981 in Case 731/79 CA. A. Broekhuyse v Parliament [1981] ECR 107.

28 Judgment of 3 July 1980 in Joined Cases 6 and 97/79 D. Crassi v Council [1980] ECR 2141; judgment of 19 February 1981 in Joined Cases 122 and 123/79 M. Schiavo v Council [1981] ECR 473.