Judgment_paragraph 2. · Kurt Weighardt v Commission of the EAEC (11/64)

2.The second head of the conclusions in the application consists of a request for the annulment of “all the steps in the integration procedure concerning the applicant, as well as the opinion of the Establishment Board, these forming the basis of the EAEC Commission's decision of 8 January 1964”.The defendant claims that this head is inadmissible. In fact, it says, a procedure, or the steps which it comprises, is not capable of being annulled unless it involves administrative acts adversely affecting an official. The most that could be done would be to declare that such a procedure was irregular.The applicant replies that the distinction drawn by the defendant between an irregular step in procedure and an administrative act which is void is somewhat futile in this case, since the Court has now ruled that only the appointment itself can be questioned, the entire integration procedure being no more than a preparatory process (judgment in Case 87/63 of 7 July 1964, Rec. 1964, pp. 948, last sentence, and 949).