ON A PROCEDURAL ISSUE SUBMITTED UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE COMMISSION ASKED THE COURT TO RULE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION 4/74 .
18 BY ORDER OF 9 JULY 1974 THE COURT DECIDED TO RESERVE ITS DECISION ON THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FOR THE FINAL JUDGMENT .
19 IN SUPPORT OF ITS OBJECTION, THE COMMISSION EMPHASIZED THE FACT THAT AT THE DATE WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS LODGED, 15 JANUARY 1974, THE APPLICANT WAS, AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION OF 27 JUNE 1973 TERMINATING HIS SERVICE, NO LONGER AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT HE THEREFORE NO LONGER HAD A LEGAL INTEREST IN ASKING FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITUATION WHICH NO LONGER EXISTED TO BE CHANGED .
20 THE EXPLANATIONS SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE ENABLED HIM TO ESTABLISH A VALID INTEREST IN OBTAINING A REVIEW OF THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE DECISION TO TRANSFER HIM, NOTWITHSTANDING THE DECISION TO TERMINATE HIS SERVICE, A FORTIORI SINCE HE IS CHALLENGING THE LATTER DECISION .
21 THE OBJECTION AS TO ADMISSIBILITY RAISED BY THE COMMISSION MUST, ACCORDINGLY, BE SET ASIDE AND CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE SUBSTANCE .
22 UNDER THE 'PROGRAMME OF WORK' FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURE, WHICH MADE PARTICULARLY HEAVY DEMANDS ON THE COMMUNITY ADMINISTRATION, THE COMMISSION HAD SET UP A SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION AND DISTRIBUTED AMONG NAMED INDIVIDUALS THE TASKS ALLOTTED TO EACH OF THE DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICIALS CONCERNED IN THE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURE .
23 WITHIN DIRECTORATE E, WHICH WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES AND ENVIRONMENT, THE PLAN MADE THE HEAD OF DIVISION VI/E/1 SPECIFICALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR LAYING DOWN THE GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR CERTAIN PARTS OF THE WORK DONE BY OTHER DIVISIONS IN THE DIRECTORATE .
24 WHEN, IN MARCH 1969, THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY COMMENCED WORK AS HEAD OF DIVISION VI/E/3 HE REFUSED TO ACCEPT WHAT HE REGARDED AS 'SUBORDINATE' STATUS TO THE HEAD OF THE FIRST-MENTIONED DIVISION AND HE PERSISTED IN THIS ATTITUDE .
25 DURING THE FOUR YEARS IN WHICH HE WAS HEAD OF DIVISION VI/E/3, THE SERVICE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE HEAD OF DIVISION VI/E/1 BECAME MORE AND MORE STRAINED AND WAS MARKED BY PROTESTS BY THE APPLICANT IN INCREASINGLY VEHEMENT AND PERSONAL TERMS .
26 THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'PROGRAMME OF WORK', TO WHICH THE APPLICANT OBJECTED, FORM PART OF MEASURES WHICH THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITY WAS ENTITLED TO TAKE IN THE INTERESTS OF THE INTERNAL ORGANIZATION OF ITS DEPARTMENTS .
27 MORE PARTICULARLY, NO PROVISION IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS PREVENTS A HEAD OF DIVISION, IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COORDINATING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES, FROM BEING, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR, MADE ANSWERABLE TO THE HEAD OF ANOTHER DIVISION .
28 FAR FROM BEING AN INDICATION OF ILL WILL TOWARDS THE APPLICANT, THE DECISION TO TRANSFER HIM, TAKEN WITH FULL REGARD TO HIS RANK AND PECUNIARY RIGHTS, WAS A LEGITIMATE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION TO PUT AN END TO A SITUATION WHICH WAS INIMICAL TO