Opinion of Advocate General Gulmann delivered on 10 February 1994

1 Original language: French.

2 [1993] ECR II-375.

3 Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-220/91 P Commission v Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter [1993] ECR I-2393, paragraph 30.

4 See, for example, paragraph 26 of the judgment in De Szy-Tarisse and Feyaerts v Commission, in which the Court of Justice stated: ... it must be pointed out that, according to a line of cases decided by the Court, the appointing authority has a wide discretion, within the limits laid down by Article 31 and the second paragraph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations or by the internal decisions implementing those articles, in assessing the previous experience of a person recruited as an official, both as regards the nature and length of that experience and as regards the extent to which it meets the requirements of the post to be filled.

5 Article 31(1) and (2) provides:1. Candidates thus selected shall be appointed as follows: officials in Category A or the Language Service: to the starting grade of their category or service; ... 2. However, the appointing authority may make exceptions to the foregoing provisions within the following limits: (a) in respect of Grades A 1, A 2, A 3 and LA 3, ... (b) in respect of other grades, up to one third of the appointments to posts becoming vacant; up to half the appointments to newly created posts.

6 See, inter alia, the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-38/89 Hochbaum v Commission [1990] ECR II-43, paragraph 24.

7 Case C-30/91 P, [1992] ECR I-3755. The Court of Justice stated in paragraph 28: ... if the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance reveal an infringement of Community law but the operative part appears well founded on other legal grounds, the appeal must Be dismissed.