C-108/88

Subsequently, the Selection Board informed As laid down in Section III. B.2 of the Mr Jaenicke Cendoya, first of all, that the Notice of Competition, by the closing date Icade diploma which he had submitted for the submission of applications could be accepted for the purposes of (21 August 1987) candidates must: admission to the competition, pursuant to the provisions of Section III. B.2 of the Notice of Competition, only if the diploma were officially recognized by the competent '(a) furnish proof that they have completed Spanish authorities by means of a validation postgraduate university studies procedure. The applicant was then evidenced by the award of a degree requested to produce, by the date set for the (título). The Selection Board will take oral test at the latest (12 January 1988), into account the particular features of documentary evidence that the degree had the structures of the studies pursued by been validated. the candidates;

(b) have at least 12 years' experience since leaving university, six of which must be On the day of the oral test Mr Jaenicke relevant to the post in question, the Cendoya merely submitted to the Selection duties of which are set out in the Board a document from the Spanish annex'. Ministry of Education and Sciences which showed only that an opinion had been requested regarding the possibility of having Within the time allowed, Mr Jaenicke the diploma in question validated. In fact, as Cendoya submitted his application form and the rather brief contents of the document enclosed an academic certificate from the show, the diploma was obtained at a time Instituto católico de administración y when Spanish law did not yet recognize the

In those circumstances, the Selection Board decided not to proceed with the oral test. In order to dispel any possible confusion The decision not to admit the. applicant to regarding the facts of the case, it should the test was subsequently confirmed by a also be pointed out that, as a result of the letter of 25 January 1988 from the Head of arguments put forward during the written the Commission's Recruitment Division. and oral procedures, there no longer appears to be any dispute that the document in question is recognized as a certificate of completion of studies which, although private, is none the less a full one. What is 2. Before considering the substance of the at issue, therefore, is a certificate which application, it must be pointed out that the shows that the applicant passed all the documents before the Court show that examinations which relate to the course and between 1983 and 1985 Mr Jaenicke which at the same time recognizes the Cendoya took and passed, again at the applicant's status as a graduate in the course University pontificia de Comillas ICAI- of studies itself, even though the corre­ Icade, nine examinations in subjects sponding degree (the 'título privado de different from those which formed part of licenciado en ciencias empresariales') could the course of studies he pursued between only be actually awarded subsequently on 1968 and 1973. On the basis of the results payment of the relevant fees. in those nine examinations and of the recognition given to the examinations he had previously sat between 1968 and 1973, Mr Jaenicke Cendoya obtained another However, it must be pointed out that in private degree. Whatever the status, content deciding whether he was eligible to take or validity of the second degree — which, part in the competition, the Selection Board however, the applicant claims is wholly at no time disputed that the document in unconnected with the diploma relating to question constituted a bona fide certificate, the studies he pursued between 1968 and that is to say a diploma relating to a full 1973 — it is irrelevant for the purpose of course of studies; it merely imposed one settling the present dispute, first because it further condition, namely that it should be was submitted after the time-limit prescribed validated and, therefore, that the degree in the Notice of Competition and secondly itself should be recognized. because it was obtained at a time— 1985 — which could not enable the applicant to prove that he met the second requirement for admission laid down in the Nor, in the final analysis, is it disputed that Notice of Competition, namely possession the condition that the degree should be of at least 12 years' experience since leaving validated has not been met. It was explained university. at the hearing that the procedure for

Finally, in the applicant's view, the Selection Board ought to have accepted for the The applicant claims first of all that the purposes of admission to the competition imposition of such a condition constitutes not only degrees which are de jure equi­ an infringement of the Notice of Compe­ valent to degrees awarded by State univer­ tition. He puts forward essentially three sities but also those which are de facto equi­ arguments in support of that claim: valent.

(a) validation is a new condition since it I do not accept that argument. It is true that was not laid down in the first sentence the selection board in a competition is of Section HI. B.2(a) of the Notice of bound by the contents of the Notice of Competition, which requires only the Competition. ' It is also true that Section III. production of a degree (título) — which B.2(a) of the Notice of Competition in is not otherwise specified — evidencing question does not specify what is meant by completion of full postgraduate degree (título). university studies;

Nevertheless, in the absence of a Community definition of university degrees (b) the request for validation, which implied that only candidates holding recognized 1 — Sec the ludgmeni in Case 67/81 Rinke v Commune»! degrees would be admitted to the [1982] F.CR 661, paragraph 9.

OPINION OF MR TESAURO —CASE 108/88

That is the only method which can 4. Of course, since the requirement in guarantee equal treatment in competitions question is a formal one, it can, in some in which there may be candidates who have cases, give rise to results which are not pursued university — in the broad sense of entirely satisfactory. That is the case when the term — studies in different countries candidates holding qualifications which are and at institutes which use systems of not officially recognized but which relate to instruction which are very different from the courses which are of an essentially point of view of organization, structure, university level are not allowed to take part method and content. It allows, in fact, equal in a competition. As has emerged during treatment to be accorded to those who, these proceedings, that appears to be the having obtained degrees whose validity is case with degrees awarded by the Icade evidenced by the State's seal of official before 1979. The Commission itself has approval, are in a substantially similar recognized that the teaching at the institute position both factually and, above all, in question is serious and of a high quality. legally.

In general, however, there are probably few That method is also the one which is able to such cases as there are usually appropriate give the greatest degree of certitude to procedures for obtaining, at the national candidates, allowing them to know in level, recognition of the validity of private advance and with sufficient certainty degrees which really are of a level whether or not their own university qualifi­ comparable to those obtained at State cations will be considered valid for the universities. In any event, where there is no purposes of admission to the European civil service. 2 — Case 34/80 Authié v Commission [1981] ECR 665.

In my opinion, therefore, unless otherwise specified in the Notice of Competition, the selection board is required to apply the On the other hand, a ruling that selection formal criterion described above, confining boards must from time to time verify that a itself to considering as a university degree particular private degree is de facto equi­ only those degrees which the laws of the valent to an official degree might give rise Member States officially recognize. That to much more serious consequences. As has means that, in the present case, by taking been pointed out, candidates would be into consideration only those degrees which uncertain about which degrees qualified for were obtained at a State university or those admission. Moreover, it is clear that a obtained at a private university but selection board, regardless of its compo­ subsequently 'validated', the Selection Board sition, is not able to verify that degrees correctly applied the provisions of the awarded in various countries and evidencing Notice of Competition. situations which are in fact extremely different are substantially equivalent to official degrees. An exercise of that kind would lead to results which were unreliable and would be likely to contain unacceptable 5. The second sentence of Section III. inequalities of treatment both within one B.2(a) of the Notice of Competition ('the competition and between competitions. Selection Board will take into account the Finally, as has already been stated, an particular features of the structure of the exercise of that kind would alter the nature studies pursued by the candidates'), does of the stage of the competition at which a not have the scope ascribed to it by the check is made that the candidates are applicant. That provision, which occurs eligible to take pan and would in a way repeatedly in Community competitions, anticipate the subsequent stage when the imposes an obligation to take into account candidates are compared. the fact that the candidates may have pursued studies in various States and therefore in universities where the courses are structured and organized differently. That is the meaning of the provisions both in competitions in which citizens of all the Member States are taking part and in Moreover, irrespective of the level of the competitions — such as the one in studies pursued, those who have pursued a question — which are open only to citizens private course of studies must be aware that of one Member State. The second sentence the degree obtained, if it is not recognized, of Section III. B.2(a) cannot, on the other will not allow them to enter the majority of hand, be interpreted as intending to impose professions and careers, in the present case on a selection board in a competition for those in the civil service, which involve the candidates of a single nationality the exercise of public powers or which are at requirement to verify whether or not any

3 The Court has already ruled that: That argument must also be rejected, regardless of whether the alleged contra­ diction is relevant to the question of the 'The provisions of Article 5 of the Staff legality of the decision at issue. Regulations seek to provide a general defi­ nition of the minimum level required for an official of the grade in question according to the nature of the duties attaching to the posts and do not concern the conditions of recruitment' (judgment in Lipman, para­ It is, in fact, not true that the post of local graph 7). agent which the applicant held in Madrid required a university education. Moreover, although the applicant was upgraded when he was in the post, that was on the basis not Therefore, it is not possible to rely on of his educational qualifications but of his Article 5 of the Staff Regulations in order to experience. interpret the conditions for admission in such a way as to oblige the selection board to adopt a criterion for verifying qualifi­ cations other than that which appears most appropriate, for reasons of both legality and convenience. As for the Erasmus programme, its purpose is to promote student mobility; it is therefore obviously different in scope and has no bearing whatsoever on the application of the conditions for admission 7. The applicant also points out that before of a particular competition. entering the competition in question he held the post of local agent at the Commission's Information Office in Madrid, a post which requires a university education. Further­ more, he emphasizes that the students 8. Finally, the applicant maintains that the 3 — See the judgments in Case 143/82 Lipman v Commission [1983] ECR 1301 and Case 117/78 Orlandi v Commission decision rejecting his application did not [1979] ECR 1613. contain an adequate statement of reasons.