TO HER GENERAL STATE OF HEALTH . FURTHERMORE , HER DIFFICULTIES OF VISION HAVE BECOME SO BAD THAT HER FORMER PASTIMES ( WATCHING TELEVISION , SPORT , THEATRE , READING , ETC .) ARE NOW DENIED HER AND SHE CAN NO LONGER DRIVE A CAR .
7 IN ITS DEFENCE , THE PARLIAMENT MAINTAINS THAT THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE SINCE IT WAS LODGED WITHOUT ANY PRIOR COMPLAINT HAVING BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 91 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
8 THE PARLIAMENT ADDS THAT IN ANY EVENT THE APPLICATION IS UNFOUNDED . IT STATES THAT IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE ' S RECOMMENDATION WAS FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT ' S LAWYER AT HIS REQUEST . IN ADDITION , THE PARLIAMENT POINTS OUT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY INDICATION OF HOW ITS DELAY IN MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION AVAILABLE TO HER CAUSED HER TO SUFFER DAMAGE .
9 AS REGARDS THE APPLICANT ' S COMPLAINT THAT SHE WAS NOT ASSIGNED TO A POSITION BETTER SUITED TO HER VISUAL CAPACITY , THE DEFENDANT RECOGNIZES THAT IT IS UNDER A DUTY TO HAVE REGARD TO THE INTERESTS OF ITS OFFICIALS . THAT INDEED WAS THE REASON WHY THE APPLICANT WAS ALLOWED TO TAKE SICK LEAVE FOR LONG PERIODS IN 1980 AND ALSO LATER . EVEN BEFORE THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE MADE ITS RECOMMENDATION ON 28 JANUARY 1983 , THE PARLIAMENT ' S ADMINISTRATION HAD ATTEMPTED TO FIND A POST WHICH WOULD BE SUITABLE FOR THE APPLICANT ' S STATE OF HEALTH . THE PARLIAMENT SAYS THAT IT IS STILL LOOKING FOR SUCH A POST , WHICH THE APPLICANT ' S LAWYER HIMSELF DESCRIBED AS A ' MIRACLE JOB ' .
10 THE PARLIAMENT ' S POSITION IS THEREFORE THAT , ALTHOUGH IT HAS NOT YET FOUND THE APPLICANT A SUITABLE POSITION , IT HAS NOT FAILED IN ITS OBLIGATIONS TOWARDS HER .
ADMISSIBILITY
11 ARTICLE 91 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT AN APPEAL TO THE COURT LIES ONLY IF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS PREVIOUSLY HAD A COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO IT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) AND IF THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN REJECTED BY AN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED DECISION . THE OBJECT OF THAT PROVISION IS TO PERMIT AND ENCOURAGE AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WHICH ARISE BETWEEN OFFICIALS OR OTHER SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES AND THE ADMINISTRATION . THE COURT HAS UPHELD THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ACTIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF A PRIOR COMPLAINT ONLY IN THE CASE OF APPEALS AGAINST DECISIONS OF SELECTION BOARDS . IN SUCH CASES , THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ANNUL OR AMEND THE SELECTION BOARD ' S DECISIONS . IN THIS CASE , HOWEVER , A PRIOR COMPLAINT MIGHT HAVE SERVED A USEFUL PURPOSE . IT WAS ESSENTIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT TO BE PUT IN A POSITION TO KNOW THE COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST IT , SO AS TO ENABLE IT , WHERE APPROPRIATE , TO ENDEAVOUR TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE BEFORE