3.The defendant maintains that the application is inadmissible in so far as it impugns the list of suitable candidates drawn up by the Selection Board, which has an unfettered discretion in the matter. Consequently, it is irrelevant to discuss the value of the applicant's qualifications and his offer of proof should be rejected as being inadmissible.The applicant objects to this claiming that it cannot foe admitted that the Selection Board for a competition has unfettered discretion and that its decisions cannot be challenged, without thereby taking away an essential matter from the jurisdiction of the Court and thus depriving officials of all possibility of appeal, as in the case of a flagrant act of injustice by the Selection Board. Further, such an argument is in contradiction with Article 91 of the Staff Regulations which recognizes the Court's unlimited jurisdiction in appeals by officials and which applies necessarily to the provisions of the Staff Regulations (Article 30) instituting the Selection Board.Finally the request for the applicant's qualifications to be examined and his offer of proof are in complete conformity with the case-law of the Court (Cases 10/55, 1/56 and 27/63).The defendant replies, on the one hand, that Article 91 of the Staff Regulations provides for applications for annulment and not applications in respect of unlimited jurisdiction and, on the other hand, claims .that the case-law cited by the applicant is not relevant to this case, or in no way justifies his arguments.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.