.
12 THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PROBATION REPORTS AS REGARDS THE TECHNICAL ABILITIES OF THE APPLICANT IN HIS SPECIFIC SUBJECT IS FAVOURABLE .
13 IT APPEARS THEREFORE THAT THE COMMISSION GAVE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW HIS TECHNICAL ABILITIES .
14 THE FACT THAT IN THE ACTUAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE DUTIES ATTACHING TO THE POST IN QUESTION OFFICE WORK SUCH AS THE WRITING OF MINUTES OF MEETINGS WHICH DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE DIRECT AND NECESSARY EXTENSION OF FIELD WORK WAS GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT CANNOT INVALIDATE HIS PROBATIONARY PERIOD SINCE THOSE TASKS RELATE TO THE SUBJECT-MATTER REFERRED TO IN THE VACANCY NOTICE .
15 MOREOVER, THE APPLICANT, IN SPITE OF HIS RECOGNIZED COMPETENCE IN HIS OWN TECHNICAL SPECIALITY, ALSO REVEALED SOME INADEQUACIES IN PERFORMING OFFICE DUTIES WHICH WERE VERY CLOSELY LINKED TO HIS PRACTICAL FIELD WORK .
16 BY TWICE EXTENDING THE NORMAL PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF THE APPLICANT, THE DEFENDANT SHOWED UNDERSTANDING TOWARDS MR NAGELS BY GIVING HIM TIME TO BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO HIS OFFICE DUTIES, FOR WHICH HE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT APPROPRIATELY TRAINED .
17 DURING THAT PERIOD, SEVERAL TASKS WERE ENTRUSTED TO THE APPLICANT WHO WAS PUT IN A POSITION TO SHOW HIS CAPACITY TO ADAPT HIMSELF TO HIS NEW DUTIES .
18 THE FACT THAT THE TIME THUS AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT, AS HE HIMSELF ADMITS, FOR HIM TO REACH A STANDARD COMPATIBLE WITH HIS POST, CANNOT INVALIDATE THE REGULARITY OF THE PROBATION PERIOD IN QUESTION .
19 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ABOVEMENTIONED COMPLAINT IS UNFOUNDED .
II - COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE PROCEDURE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE DECISION TO DISMISS THE APPLICANT
20 THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS MOREOVER THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION WAS NOT PRECEDED BY THE OPINION OF THE REPORTS COMMITTEE AND WAS TAKEN BELATEDLY .
21 SINCE IT IS NOT COMPULSORY TO SET UP A REPORTS COMMITTEE AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 9 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, IT CANNOT BE COMPLAINED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT YET MADE USE OF ITS OPTION TO SET UP THIS COMMITTEE .
22 ARTICLE 34, WHICH MAKES PROVISION FOR THE CASE IN WHICH AN OFFICIAL' S APPOINTMENT IS BROUGHT TO AN END FOLLOWING THE PROBATION PERIOD, DOES NOT LAY DOWN ANY COMPULSORY TIME-LIMIT FOR THE ADOPTION OF THAT DECISION .
23 SINCE THE LAST ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF PROBATION GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT ENDED ON 31 JANUARY 1970, THE COMMISSION, BY ADOPTING ON 11 FEBRUARY 1970 ITS DECISION TO DISMISS HIM AND BY NOTIFYING HIM TO THIS EFFECT ON THE FOLLOWING 16 FEBRUARY, ACTED WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME .
24 THEREFORE THE COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT ARE UNFOUNDED .
III - THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
25 THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THE COMMISSION, BY GIVING HIM TASKS DURING HIS PROBATIONARY PERIOD WHICH WERE LARGELY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE LAID DOWN IN THE VACANCY NOTICE, HAS COMMITTED A WRONGFUL ACT WHICH CAUSED HIM DAMAGE .
26 HE CLAIMS THAT THE DECISION TO DISMISS HIM WAS IN FACT OF A HUMILIATING NATURE AND LIKELY TO HAVE AN