C-28/87

Mr President, 4. In addition, according to Mr Arendt, the Members of the Court, Board's decision was vitiated by manifest error because it disregarded the fact that the post currently held by him required him to 1. This action is directed against the refusal have proven knowledge of accountancy, of the Selection Board in Internal Compe- according to the vacancy notice for that tition N o B/161, organized by the post. The Board had taken into European Parliament, to admit a candidate consideration only the nature of the duties to the tests in that competition. The described in the vacancy notice, namely the applicant, Mr Arendt, considers that the carrying out of calculations. reasons given for the rejection of his candi- dature were contradictory and therefore insufficient, that the decision was vitiated by 5. It is undeniable that the vacancy notice manifest error, infringed the principle of for the post held by Mr Arendt referred to good administration and failed to comply the requirement of 'proven knowledge of with the duty to have regard to the interests accountancy'. It is equally certain that that of officials. document stated, in describing the nature of the duties carried out by him, that they consisted of 'clerical tasks of an adminis- 2. Mr Arendt claims that the reasons given trative nature' involving various calculations for the decision are contradictory, and relating to social security and pensions. therefore insufficient inasmuch as the initial explanation of his rejection suggested that he had failed to obtain the minimum mark 6. Knowledge of accountancy, like all other set in respect of general education, general knowledge moreover, cannot be assessed in experience and specific experience, whereas the abstract but must be considered in the 'additional information', supplied relation to the duties to which it is applied. subsequently, referred solely to the lack of The Court adopted a similar reasoning in its sufficient specific experience. judgment in the Vlachou case, 'stating that experience must be assessed in relation to the post in question. 3. There does not appear to be any contra- diction in this respect. The Selection Board thereby stressed the aspect of specific 7. In this case, it appears from the experience, but this ground had already documents submitted to the Selection Board been cited previously. Accordingly, the emphasis placed on this requirement must that Mr Arendt's duties consisted of calcu- be regarded as an additional explanation. In lation and operations of arithmetic, which is any event, this circumstance is not sufficient confirmed by the reply to the question put for the submission based on the contra- by the Court to the European Parliament. dictory nature of the reasons given to The experience thus acquired was taken into succeed. consideration under option 3. On the other

hand, the Board took the view that it had between reciprocal rights and obligations in no bearing on options 1 and 2. According to relations between the public authorities and the notice of competition those options civil servants. However, the search for such concerned important supervisory duties with a balance cannot entail an obligation for the regard to accounts and the application of selection board to make up the candidate's the Financial Regulation. Consequently file. there can in my view be no question of it being manifestly incorrect to consider that 12. In submitting documents supporting his the experience acquired by M r Arendt in his candidature, a candidate must make every current duties did not correspond to the effort to provide the information which will nature of the duties described in the notice. enable the selection board to find whether the requirements laid down in the notice of 8. As regards the Selection Board's failure competition are satisfied. Moreover, there is to comply with the principle of good admin- nothing to suggest that Mr Arendt, when istration and the duty to have regard to submitting his candidature, omitted any officials' interests, it is necessary at the fundamental information for the assessment outset to reject the Parliament's argument of his accountancy experience. In any event, that the latter duty is incumbent only on the it was for him to show, if possible, what administration proper and not on a selection such experience consisted of, having regard board. The Court has already held that to the duties which he performs, which were selection boards are under such a duty, described, it may be recalled, as calcu- in its judgments in Scbwiering 2and Mau- lations. rissen. 3 13. However, and above all, in recom- 9. It nevertheless remains to ascertain the mending that the Court reject the complaint extent to which the Board failed to observe of a failure to observe the duty to have the principle in question in this case. regard to the applicant's interests, it may be 10. In the first place, unlike the circum- noted that Mr Arendt, who considers that stances which gave rise to the Scbwiering the Board ought to have sought additional and Maurissen judgments, there is no information, stated in a letter of 20 June suggestion whatsoever that the Board 1986 which was among the documents discarded additional documents submitted submitted to the Court: 'I would draw your to them by the candidate. It is therefore attention to the fact that I have not included necessary to determine whether the any new documents in connection with this 'contradiction' in the vacancy notice relating point because my file contains all the to the applicant's current post should have necessary documents for a correct led the Board to request the production of assessment of my relevant experience'. other documents in order to establish 14. Finally, there would seem to be no whether the candidate satisfied the ground for ordering the investigative conditions laid down regarding experience. measure sought by the applicant, namely the 11. The duty to have regard to officials' lodging of the minutes of the Selection interests reflects the necessary balance Board's deliberations.