Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 10 December 1991

1 Original language: French.

2 T-37/89 [1990] ECR II-463.

3 C-345/90 PR [1991] ECR 1-231.

4 Under the heading Applications it was stated: This application form, together with the supporting documents concerning both education and professional experience, must be sent... not later than 19 January 1987 ... Candidates, including officials and other servants of the European Community, who fail to forward application forms and all supporting documents within the prescribed time-limit will not be admitted to the competition.

5 Case 176/88 R Hanning v Parliament [1988] ECR 3915.

6 See point 16, above.

7 At paragraph 40.

8 At paragraph 55.

9 Judgments in Case 44/71 Marcato v Commission [1972] ECR 427; Case 34/80 Authié v Commission [1981] ECR 665 and Case 144/82 Detti v Court of Justice [1983] ECR 2421.

10 Judgment in Case 321/85 Schwieńng v Court of Auditors [1986] ECR 3199.

11 See paragraph 70, penultimate sentence.

12 Paragraphs 70 and 71.

13 Paragraphs 72 to 74.

14 In this respect the remarks of the Parliament's Legal Department should be noted: With regard to the candidates admitted to the competition, their chances were reduced by increasing the competitive element, since the üst of suitable candidates was limited from the outset to four places and the candidates who had been given a second chance were on it. It must be pointed out that according to the marks contained in the Selection Board's report, there is at least one candidate who obtained the minimum number of points necessary but who cannot be included on the list of suitable candidates. The appointing authority may not therefore consider appointing a person who has succeeded in the competiuon but whose inclusion on the list of suitable candidates is barred because of candidates who ought not to appear on it (Opinion of 9 February 1988, p. 15).

15 Judgment in Joined Cases 322 and 323/85 [1986] ECR 3215.

16 At paragraphs 13 and 14.

17 See paragraph 70 of the judgment.

18 Joined Cases 316/82 and 40/83 [1984] ECR 641.

19 At paragraph 22.

20 Cited above; see also the judgment in Case 321/85 Schwiering v Court of Auditors, cited above.

21 See in this sense the opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gcrven in Case C-145/90 P Costacurta [1991] ECR 1-5449, point 3: The Court's powers of review on appeal are intended to ensure the uniformity of Community law see also the fifth recital of the Council Decision of 24 October 1988 establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities: It is necessary, in order to maintain the quality and effectiveness of judicial review in the Community legal order, to enable the Court to concentrate its activities on its fundamental task of ensuring uniform interpretation of Community law(Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom, Official Journal 1989 C 215, p. 1, my emphasis).

22 For example regarding the circumstances in which Mr Harming was asked to nave a medical examination.