Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 15 October 1991

1 Origini) language: Italian.

2 Joined Cases 44/85, 77/85, 294/85 and 295/85 Hochblum iná Rives v Commission [1987] ECR 3259.

3 Case T-38/89 Hochblum v Commission [1990] ECR II-43.

4 The applicant's other two pleas in law before the Court of Fim Instance, alleging infringement of Article 176 of the Treaty and infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, are not repeated m the present appeal.

5 Judgment in Case 52/86 Banner v Parliament [1987] ECR 979, paragraph 9. See also, among others, the judgment in Case 26/85 Waysse v Commission [1986] ECR 3131, paragraph 26; judgment in Case 306/85 Huybrechts v Commission [1987] ECR 629, paragraph 9; and judgment in Case 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, paragraph 18.

6 Judgment Ín Cue 188/73 Crani v CouacB [1974] ECR 1099, paragraph 26.

7 Judgment in Cate 343/87 culin v Commission f1990] ECR 225, paragraph 19.

8 Ibid., paragraph 22.

9 See for example the judgment in Caie 282/81 Kagun v Commission [1983] ECR 1245, paragraph 13; judgment in Case 52/86, cited above, paragraph 9; and the pidgment in Case C-343/87 CuKn, in mich the Court upheld the application since h was apparent from the documents betöre the Court that the appointing authority had relied on a requirement not laid dovn in the vacancy notice as a decisive criterion for promotion (paragraph 21).

10 Judgment in Case 282/82, cited above, paragraph 13.

11 Judgment in Gut 52/86, cited abose, paragraph 6; tee ako the judgment in Caie 135/87 VUchou v Court of Auditors [1988] ECR 2091, paragraph 27.