SAID REGULATIONS .
IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT PROCEDURE WAS PROPER .
B - CONCERNING THE GROUND OF COMPLAINT BASED ON THE INACCURACY AND LACK OF RELEVANCE OF THE REASONS
THE APPLICANT, ALTHOUGH ADMITTING HAVING USED FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES THE PREMISES AND APPARATUS PUT AT HER DISPOSAL FOR USE IN THE SERVICE, DENIES THAT VERBAL WARNINGS WERE GIVEN TO HER ON THIS SUBJECT .
THIS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE FORMAL AND CONCURRING STATEMENTS SUPPLIED IN THIS RESPECT BY THE OFFICIALS WHO WERE HEARD BY THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD .
IT IS IMPROBABLE FURTHERMORE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION, HOWEVER TOLERANT IT WAS, DID NOT AT LEAST GIVE THE APPLICANT VERBAL WARNINGS CONCERNING HER CONDUCT DURING WORKING HOURS .
CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE MATERIAL INACCURACY OF THE FACTS ON THIS POINT .
THE APPLICANT NEXT DENIES HAVING DISTURBED THE FUNCTIONING OF THE DEPARTMENT BY THE MANAGEMENT OF HER PRIVATE INTERESTS .
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT WAS IN ITSELF OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO DISTURB THE FUNCTIONING OF THE DEPARTMENT . CONSEQUENTLY A SIMPLE DENIAL ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT CANNOT AMOUNT TO PROOF THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT ACTUALLY DISTURBED . THE APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS THAT SHE WAS LEFT VERY OFTEN WITHOUT WORK DO NOT AMOUNT TO JUSTIFICATION IN THIS RESPECT .
THE APPLICANT LASTLY DISPUTES THE RELEVANCE OF THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD . IT APPEARS ON THE CONTRARY THAT THESE REASONS ARE OF JUST SUCH A NATURE AS LEGALLY TO JUSTIFY THE UNFAVOURABLE OPINION OF THE CONDUCT OF THE PERSON CONCERNED IN RESPECT OF HER ABILITY TO CARRY OUT HER DUTIES ON A PERMANENT BASIS .
CONSEQUENTLY, THIS GROUND OF COMPLAINT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED .
C - CONCERNING THE REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION
ANY RIGHT OF THE APPLICANT TO COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGE WHICH THE DISPUTED DECISION MAY POSSIBLY HAVE CAUSED MUST IN THE PRESENT CASE BE PRECLUDED . IN FACT THE DISPUTED DECISION DOES NOT DISPLAY ANY SIGN OF THE DEFECTS ALLEGED BY THE APPLICANT . CONSEQUENTLY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CHARACTER AND THE OBJECT OF THIS DECISION, IT CANNOT AMOUNT TO A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION AND THUS CAUSE UNLAWFUL DAMAGE UNLESS THE DECISION CONTAINS SUPERFLUOUS CRITICISMS IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ALLEGED IN THE PRESENT CASE .
FURTHERMORE, THE REASONS FOR THE DISPUTED DECISION CONTAIN NO UNNECESSARY CRITICISM AND ARE LIMITED TO THE INDISPENSABLE MINIMUM .
CONSEQUENTLY, IT ONLY REMAINS TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION FOUNDED UPON INSUFFICIENT NOTICE .
IT IS NECESSARY TO STATE, FIRST OF ALL, THAT THE NOTICE OF ONE MONTH CORRESPONDS TO WHAT WAS PROVIDED FOR IN THE APPLICANT'S CONTRACT OF APPOINTMENT .
UNDER ARTICLE 102 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED, IN ADDITION, COMPENSATION CORRESPONDING TO TWO MONTHS' BASIC SALARY, AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 34 OF THE REGULATIONS .
IN THE PRESENT CASE THIS ALLOWANCE WHICH IS DIRECTLY PROVIDED FOR BY THE REGULATIONS