THE SERVICE .
22IN SUPPORT OF THAT COMPLAINT THE APPLICANT RELIES IN PARTICULAR ON A NOTE SENT TO THE COMMISSION BY MR BISHOP , OF WHICH HE OBTAINED KNOWLEDGE DURING A CONVERSATION WITH AN OFFICIAL IN THE PERSONNEL BRANCH AND WHICH HE ALLEGED HAD AN UNFAVOURABLE EFFECT UPON HIS CHANCES FOR PROMOTION .
23HE FURTHER CLAIMS THAT THE REASON FOR THE OMISSION OF HIS NAME FROM THE PROMOTION LIST IN QUESTION IS TO BE FOUND IN THE HOSTILITY SHOWN TOWARDS HIM BY CERTAIN OF HIS SUPERIORS OR COLLEAGUES .
24IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE NOTE IN QUESTION WAS SENT BY MR BISHOP TO THE PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION DIVISION AT ISPRA AFTER THE APPLICANT HAD , ON 8 DECEMBER 1976 , SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS CONCERNING THE OMISSION OF HIS NAME FROM THE PROMOTION LIST IN QUESTION , AND THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO REINFORCE THE REPLY BY THE COMMISSION TO THAT COMPLAINT .
25SINCE THAT NOTE COULD NOT ACCORDINGLY HAVE PROMPTED THAT OMISSION IT CANNOT SUPPORT THE COMPLAINT OF A MISUSE OF POWERS AS ALLEGED .
26NOR DO THE OTHER ARGUMENTS ADDUCED BY THE APPLICANT PROVIDE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE FOR LEGAL PURPOSES THAT HE WAS THE VICTIM OF A MISUSE OF POWERS .
27FOR ALL THESE REASONS THE FIRST HEAD OF THE APPLICATION APPEARS TO BE UNFOUNDED .
B - THE SECOND HEAD OF THE APPLICATION
ADMISSIBILITY
28THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT THE SECOND HEAD OF THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE IN THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS , FIXED BY THE FINAL SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLAINT WAS LODGED .
29IT DENIES THAT THERE IS ANY FOUNDATION TO THE APPLICANT ' S CLAIM THAT HIS COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS AGAINST THE DECISION TO TRANSFER HIM MAY BE LINKED TO THE COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED IN RELATION TO THE PROMOTION LIST WITH WHICH THE FIRST HEAD OF THE APPLICATION IS CONCERNED .
30IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT BY NOTE OF 1 MARCH 1977 THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED TO THE AUTHORITY WHICH HAD ADOPTED THE SAID DECISION TO TRANSFER HIM A COMPLAINT RELATING TO THAT DECISION .
31IN VIEW OF ITS PURPORT , OF ITS EXPRESS REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND OF THE AUTHORITY TO WHICH IT WAS ADDRESSED THAT NOTE MUST BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN A COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SAID ARTICLE 90 .
32THE AUTHORITY TO WHICH THAT COMPLAINT WAS SUBMITTED REPLIED BY A MEMORANDUM OF 27 JUNE 1977 STATING THE REASONS FOR THE TRANSFER DECISION IN QUESTION .
33IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE PRESENT APPLICATION , RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 5 JULY 1977 , MUST BE HELD TO BE ADMISSIBLE AS TO ITS SECOND HEAD .
SUBSTANCE
34THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THE DECISION IN DISPUTE IS IRREGULAR WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 25 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT NOTIFIED TO HIM