C-417/85

MAURISSEN v COURT OF AUDITORS

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL DARMON delivered on 11 December 1986*

Mr President, the applicant did not make clear either the Members of the Court, level of the post of financial analyst associate or how long he worked as a productivity project analyst. As for the documents submitted in support of the supplementary observations, they were not 1. This is the fourth case to challenge admissible and in any event did not establish before the Court of Justice a decision taken the precise length of his experience in an by the Selection Board for Internal Compe­ activity corresponding to the university-level tition No CC/A/8/85 organized by the education requirement. Court of Auditors refusing to admit a candidate to the competition. In that respect I refer to the Report for the Hearing drawn up in the present case and to the judgments of 23 October 1986 in Case 321/85, 1 and in 2. Two questions arise. Was the Selection Joined Cases 322 and 323/85. 2 Board entitled to refuse to take account of the documents submitted by Mr Maurissen in support of his observations? If not, were the documents such as to allow the Selection Board to determine whether the Basically the applicant, Henri Maurissen, aforesaid duties performed at IBM were of considers that the two decisions adopted by a satisfactory level and for a sufficient the Selection Board, the first on 2 August period, fixed at three years by the Selection 1985 and the second on 28 October 1985 Board, to constitute 'equivalent professional having regard to the supplementary obser­ experience' for the purposes of point vations submitted by Mr Maurissen in IV. 1(b) of the notice of competition? response to the invitation in the letter from the Chairman of the Selection Board of 12 August 1985, were vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of his experience with IBM from 1976 to 1983, first as a 3. As the Court held in one of the aforesaid 'financial analyst associate' and then as a judgments of 23 October 1986 (Case 'productivity project analyst'. 321/85),

'A particular consequence of this duty and of the principle of good administration is 4. I think that such a restriction is contrary that when the official authority takes a to the duty to have regard to the welfare of decision concerning the situation of an officials, in particular in the case of an official it should talee into consideration all internal competition for which there is only the factors which may affect its decision and a limited number of candidates. The that when doing so it should take into Selection Board could not, therefore, refuse account not only the interests of the service to take account of documents produced in but also those of the official concerned' support of observations which it had itself (paragraph 18). invited on the ground that they had not been lodged at the outset. The Court annulled the decision at issue In its letter of 28 October 1985, the adopted in relation to Mr Schwiering on the Selection Board stated that the experience ground that the Selection Board had failed acquired by Mr Maurissen in the job of to apply in the applicant's interest the financial analyst associate as well as that he provisions of the second paragraph of acquired as productivity project analyst Article 2 of Annex III to the Staff Regu­ could have been regarded as experience of lations on the procedure for competitions to the kind required by point IV. 1(b) of the the effect that candidates 'may be required notice of competition. to furnish additional documents or infor­ mation'. It thus appears that the level of experience to be taken into account was no longer at The same Selection Board referred expressly issue but only its duration. It has, however, to that provision when inviting Mr never been disputed that from 1976 until Maurissen to provide 'any additional obser­ 1983 Mr Maurissen held successively the vations', which might, if appropriate, enable two jobs referred to above. There can also the decision of 2 August 1985 to be recon­ be no doubt that those jobs lasted more sidered. It nevertheless informed the than the three years which the Selection applicant that he could not submit any Board itself regarded as sufficient.