1.

This action challenges the validity of a decision taken by the Commission, acting in its capacity of appointing authority, to dismiss a probationary official after an extension of his probationary period. The facts are as follows: Mr R, who was born in September 1951, has a degree in physics and specializes in statistics. He passed the tests in Open Competition No COM/A/313 (notice of which was published in Official Journal No C 233 of 12 September 1981, p. 14), which was held by the Commission in order ‘to constitute a reserve of administrators in the career bracket covering Grades 7 and 6 of Category A... ’ to fill posts involving ‘administrative, advisory and supervisory duties... relating to the economic aspects of Community activity’. In their applications candidates had to indicate one or two options from the four available options: ‘(1) Econometrics and statistics. (2) Development policy and provision of aid to developing countries. (3) Macroeconomics, including monetary and fiscal policy. (4) Microeconomics, including business economics, the labour market and business finance.’ According to the Commission, and his file confirms this, Mr R chose options 1 and 3. By letter dated 17 March 1983 the Commission informed him that, subject to his express acceptance, he would be appointed as a probationary administrator (Grade A 6, Step 1) in the directorate dealing with economic structure and Community intervention within Directorate-General II, Economic and Financial Affairs. Mr R indicated his acceptance and he was appointed to such a post in the special department ‘Community loans — Development of instruments’ as from 15 July 1983 by decision of 2 August 1983. The decision referred to Vacancy Notice No 305/82, which described the duties in question as follows: ‘Administrative and advisory duties, on the basis of general guidelines, in matters of economic analysis, with particular regard to: — Surveying areas of activity for the Community's borrowing/loan instruments more particularly covered by the New Community Instrument’, and stated the qualifications required for the post. However, that was not the post in which Mr R took up his duties. On 15 July 1983 he began his probationary period, not in Directorate B but in Directorate C — Macroeconomic analyses and policies, Division II-C-4—Medium-term Projections. Apparently, by decision dated 1 August 1983, the Director of Personnel had decided ‘in the interests of the service’ to change ‘the allocation of the post... and its holder’ by transferring both from Directorate B to Directorate C in the same Directorate-General. In an end-of-probation report drawn up on 21 March 1984 pursuant to Article 34 (2) of the Staff Regulations it was stated that Mr R, whose qualities were recognized in other respects, did not have sufficient ability to perform the duties corresponding to his post because, in particular, his knowledge with regard to the post held was ‘insufficient’. It was also stated that the quality of his work was itself inadequate. Those assessments, set out in an analytical table, are explained by the following general assessment: (i) ‘Mr R undoubtedly possesses high qualifications in mathematical statistics and in data-analysis techniques. His knowledge of macroeconomics is, however, more limited and his ability to write reports has proved inadequate. In regard to the requirements of a normal career in DG II, we are of the opinion that Mr R's abilities are not such as to enable him to play an adequate part in the Directorate-General's main activities, namely conducting economic policy studies and drawing up reports on them. Consequently, DG II is unable to recommend the establishment of Mr R as a member of its permanent staff. (ii) However, it must be emphasized that Mr R would undoubtedly be a very useful official in activities more directly related to his theoretical and technical knowledge of data handling and statistics.’ The Director therefore recommended ‘that the probationary official be dismissed at the end of his probationary period’. When requested to submit his observations on that report Mr R stated that it seemed extremely severe to him, stressed his goodwill and pointed out that he would prefer a post in ‘econometrics and statistics’ in DG II. He also stated that he was ‘ready to work for any directorate having statistical and quantitative analysis work’. By letter dated 18 April 1984, three days after the expiry of the end of the probationary period fixed by the Staff Regulations, the Director of Personnel informed Mr R that in view of the report dated 21 March 1984 he had no alternative but to conclude that he should be ‘dismissed’ but that, in view of his observations and certain points made by his director, he was prepared to extend the probationary period by three months, with his agreement, so as to ‘give him a further opportunity to prove his abilities’ by asking him to make a ‘comparative analysis of a statistical nature for Directorate-General II and the Statistical Office’ under the supervision of Mr Dewaleyne and Mr Chantraine. Mr R accepted that proposal. The details of the study, the description of which was sent to the applicant on 25 April 1984 by Mr Dewaleyne, were laid down in June 1984 during a meeting between Mr R and Mr Chantraine who confirmed it in a letter sent to the applicant on 20 June. On 6 July 1984 Mr R submitted his study to his two ‘tutors’, who made their report on it four days later, on 10 July. Whilst emphasizing Mr R's theoretical knowledge and his efforts to suggest solutions to the problem set, the report was unfavourable. The ‘tutors’ noted in particular that Mr R ‘lacked the ability to synthesize’, reflected ‘in his difficulty in distinguishing between the essential and the minor’, that he showed ‘an inability to step back from the statistics to see the significance of the phenomena observed' and that he was prone to ’an excessive use of scientific language which was obscure even to the readers for whom this kind of report is generally intended'. They concluded that the study ‘does not enable any useful conclusions to be drawn, such as a reader might expect’. On 19 July 1984 the appointing authority decided to ‘dismiss’ Mr R with effect from 31 August 1984. That decision refers first of all to the probation report of 21 March 1984. It then states that the assessments are confirmed by those relating to the study carried out in the supplementary probation period and the conclusion is drawn that Mr R has not ‘shown sufficient professional aptitude to be established in the grade relating to his post’. On 8 August Mr R lodged a complaint under Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations which was expressly rejected on 13 December 1984.