36The defendant maintains that it was impossible for it to publish a new vacancy notice before March 1994 because it needed time, first, to decide whether the post in question needed to be filled, secondly, to complete the formalities for publication of the notice and, thirdly, to give potential candidates time to apply. Moreover, the applicant misconstrues the duty of care incumbent on the institution, which can never be interpreted as requiring the administration to break the rules laid down in the Staff Regulations (Case T-68/91Barbi v Commission [1992] ECR II-2127 and Case T-65/92Arauxo-Dumay v Commission [1993] ECR II-597, paragraph 37).