CONNECTION THE APPLICANT DRAWS ATTENTION TO THE TWO FORMS ANNEXED TO HER REPLY INFORMING HER THAT HER APPLICATION FOR TWO PARTICULAR POSTS HAD BEEN REJECTED . SHE FURTHER OBSERVES THAT IN JULY 1985 THE PARLIAMENT DECIDED TO APPLY TO HER THE INVALIDITY PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 78 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND THAT IN CONSEQUENCE THE LETTER TO WHICH THE DEFENDANT REFERS WAS SIMPLY ' WINDOW-DRESSING ENABLING THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO TAKE A STEP BACK THE BETTER TO ACHIEVE ITS GOAL ' . THE APPLICANT ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERS THAT THERE ARE VALID GROUNDS FOR CONTINUING THE ACTION .
7 IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT , ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION , THE ACTION IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOT TO INCLUDE THE APPLICANT ' S NAME IN THE LIST OF OFFICIALS ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION IN 1984 . SINCE THAT DECISION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVOKED BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE , THE ACTION , AS CONTEMPLATED IN THE APPLICATION , HAS MANIFESTLY BECOME DEVOID OF PURPOSE .
8 THE APPLICANT HAS NOT STATED WHETHER HER NEW CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IS BASED ON THE SAME GROUND AS HER ORIGINAL CLAIMS , NAMELY THE DECISION NOT TO INCLUDE HER NAME IN THE LIST OF OFFICIALS ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION , OR ON NEW GROUNDS , NAMELY THE DECISIONS REJECTING HER APPLICATION FOR TWO PARTICULAR POSTS AND THE DECISION REFERRING HER CASE TO THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE . HOWEVER , IN THE FIRST EVENTUALITY , THE CLAIM IS OUT OF TIME , AND IN THE SECOND IT IS PREMATURE SINCE IT HAS NOT BEEN PRECEDED BY A COMPLAINT SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS . HENCE THE NEW CLAIM IS IN ANY EVENT PATENTLY INADMISSIBLE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS .
9 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT , WHICH , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 92 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY AT ANY TIME OF ITS OWN MOTION CONSIDER WHETHER THERE EXISTS ANY ABSOLUTE BAR TO PROCEEDING WITH A CASE , HAS DECIDED TO MAKE AN ORDER ON THE PROCEDURAL ISSUES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 91 ( 3 ) AND ( 4 ) OF THOSE RULES WITHOUT OPENING THE ORAL PROCEDURE .
10 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE ORIGINAL CLAIMS HAVE BECOME DEVOID OF PURPOSE AND THAT THE NEW CLAIM IS INADMISSIBLE . THE CASE MUST THEREFORE BE REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER .
Decision on costs
COSTS
11 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 69 ( 5 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , WHERE A CASE DOES NOT PROCEED TO JUDGMENT THE COSTS ARE TO BE IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT . THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT , WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY NEED TO ASCERTAIN THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE SUBMISSIONS RELIED UPON IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION WERE WELL FOUNDED , AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE CLAIMS IS MANIFESTLY INADMISSIBLE , IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND FROM THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR ORDERING