ASSIGNMENT TO LUXEMBOURG WHICH WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN HER PROMOTION FROM HER PRESENT CATEGORY TO A HIGHER CATEGORY .
15UP TO THE TIME OF THE APPLICANT ' S REFUSAL OF THAT APPOINTMENT , THEREFORE , THE COMMISSION DID NOT IN ANY WAY FAIL IN ITS OBLIGATIONS TOWARDS HER DERIVING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 24 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AS A WHOLE .
16ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT DOES NOT CONTEST THE APPOINTMENT OF MISS F . AND HER ASSIGNMENT TO THE SERVICES OF THE COMMISSION IN BRUSSELS SHE CRITICIZES THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY FOR HAVING FAILED TO APPOINT HER IN LIKE MANNER TO ANOTHER POST OF ASSISTANT TRANSLATOR WHICH BECAME VACANT IN BRUSSELS DURING THE DURATION OF VALIDITY OF THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES AND WHICH WAS FILLED BY THE TRANSFER OF ANOTHER OFFICIAL FROM THE SERVICES OF THE COMMISSION IN LUXEMBOURG .
17IN THAT REGARD SHE RELIES ON THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 29 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IN ORDER , AS IT WERE , TO CLAIM A PRIOR RIGHT TO THAT POST , AS A SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE IN AN INTERNAL COMPETITION , OVER AN OFFICIAL WISHING TO BE ASSIGNED TO IT BY WAY OF TRANSFER .
18HOWEVER , THAT ARGUMENT RECEIVES NO SUPPORT FROM THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 29 ITSELF , WHICH ESTABLISHES THE NECESSARY RECRUITMENT PROCEDURES SO THAT VACANT POSTS MAY BE FILLED BY OFFICIALS SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE CRITERIA AND SOLELY IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE .
19IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION ' S CHOICE DID NOT FALL UPON THE APPLICANT BUT RATHER UPON AN OFFICIAL WHO WAS ALREADY EMPLOYED IN THE LANGUAGE SERVICE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE OPEN TO OBJECTIVE CRITICISM .
20THE APPLICANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED TO THE FILLING OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED POST BY WAY OF TRANSFER WERE EXTRANEOUS TO THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE .
21IT RESULTS FROM ALL OF THE FOREGOING THAT THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT APPOINT THE APPLICANT TO A POST OF ASSISTANT TRANSLATOR DURING THE DURATION OF VALIDITY OF THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT EITHER OF ARTICLE 24 OR OF ARTICLE 29 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
22AS REGARDS THE FAILURE TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF VALIDITY OF THE RESERVE LIST BEYOND 28 FEBRUARY 1977 THE COMMISSION HAS EXPLAINED THAT AT THAT PERIOD IT INTENDED TO ORGANIZE AN OPEN COMPETITION FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILLING THE NEW POSTS ALLOCATED BY THE BUDGETARY AUTHORITY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1977 , WHICH , AS REGARDS THE FRENCH LANGUAGE SECTION , INVOLVED ASSIGNMENT TO LUXEMBOURG .
23THE CONDUCT OF THE COMMISSION IN THAT REGARD , WHICH IS , MOREOVER , JUSTIFIED BY THE INTERESTS OF PROPER ADMINISTRATION , CANNOT CONSTITUTE A FAILURE TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATION TO ASSIST THE APPLICANT WHICH DERIVES FROM ARTICLE 24 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
24THERE IS , THEREFORE , NO REASON TO EXAMINE THE METHOD USED TO FILL TWO