AS THOUGH THE REINSTATEMENT HAD TAKEN PLACE ON 12 OCTOBER 1973 .
15 AS REGARDS THE PENSION SCHEME , THE PERIOD FROM 12 OCTOBER 1973 TO 14 AUGUST 1976 IS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SUBJECT TO A CONTRIBUTION FROM THE APPLICANT .
16 FINALLY , ON THE SUBJECT OF SALARY , THE APPLICANT WAS INVITED TO SUPPLY THE COMMISSION WITH A STATEMENT OF THE SALARY WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED DURING THE SAME PERIOD IN RESPECT OF HIS SERVICE WITH THE UNITED NATIONS , SO AS TO ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO CALCULATE ANY PECUNIARY DAMAGE SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF HIS BELATED REINSTATEMENT .
17 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NO LEGAL INTEREST IN SEEKING THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF 29 JULY 1976 AND THAT , IN CONSEQUENCE , HIS APPLICATION ON THIS SUBJECT MUST BE DISMISSED .
18 THE POSITION IS THE SAME AS REGARDS THE APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE APPOINTMENTS MADE SINCE 12 OCTOBER 1973 TO POSTS IN GRADE A 4 OR CAREER BRACKET A 5/A 4 .
19 WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATIONS FOR COMPENSATION , IT MUST FIRST BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE APPLICANT ' S BEHAVIOUR CONTRIBUTED TO THE DAMAGE WHICH HE CLAIMS TO HAVE SUFFERED .
20 ON THIS ASPECT IT HAS BEEN STATED ABOVE THAT , DURING THE PERIOD FROM 12 OCTOBER 1973 TO 21 NOVEMBER 1974 , THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN CASE 1/74 , THE APPLICANT , BY PERSISTING IN HIS REQUEST FOR TERMINATION OF SERVICE UNDER THE SPECIALLY FAVOURABLE CONDITIONS PROVIDED FOR IN REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2530/72 , CAST DOUBT ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF HIS REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT .
21 FURTHERMORE , THE APPLICANT ' S REPLY TO THE COMMISSION ' S OFFER OF 1 MARCH 1976 AND TO THE DECISION OF 29 JULY 1976 WAS TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THOSE ACTS AND TO REFUSE TO RETURN TO DUTY IN THE SERVICE OF THE COMMISSION ALTHOUGH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PERMISSIBLE , AND QUITE ENOUGH TO PROTECT HIS RIGHTS , FOR HIM TO ACCEPT THE POST OFFERED TO HIM , WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS SETTING IN MOTION THE PROCEDURES PROVIDED FOR IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO TEST THE LEGALITY OF THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR REINSTATEMENT .
22 IT IS TRUE THAT AT A LATER STAGE , NAMELY IN THE REPLY LODGED ON 19 JANUARY 1977 IN JOINED CASES 126/75 AND 34/76 , THE APPLICANT SUGGESTED , IN ORDER TO PRESERVE HIS RIGHTS , THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD ALLOW HIM TO RETURN TO DUTY ON CONDITION THAT SUCH A RETURN DID NOT MEAN THAT HE ACCEPTED THE ARRANGEMENTS OR CONDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD MADE ITS OFFER .
23 HOWEVER , SUCH A STATEMENT , MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE IN AN ACTION BEFORE THE COURT , CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF AN ACCEPTANCE , WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 40 ( 4 ) ( D ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , OF