NOT HAVING BEEN PROPERLY CONDUCTED .
P . 344
( B ) MISUSE OF POWERS
THE APPLICANT HAS ALLEGED THAT THE DECISION OF 8 JANUARY 1953 WAS VITIATED FOR MISUSE OF POWERS SINCE THE REAL GROUND FOR HER DISMISSAL WAS THE REVISER'S DESIRE TO REPLACE HER BY A FRIEND .
WITHOUT DWELLING ON THE FACT THAT THERE IS A CONNEXION BETWEEN THE DEPARTURE OF THE APPLICANT AND THE ARRIVAL IN THE TRANSLATION DEPARTMENT OF THE REVISER'S FRIEND, THAT THE LATTER DID REPLACE THE APPLICANT AND THAT THE DECISIONS TO DISMISS AND APPOINT WERE PROPOSED BY THE SAME PERSON, THE COURT FINDS THAT MISUSE OF POWERS HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY PROVED . THIS CLAIM CAN THEREFORE NOT BE UPHELD .
THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROBATIONARY PERIOD WAS NOT CONDUCTED UNDER PROPER CONDITIONS AND THAT THE DECISION OF THE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT OF 8 JANUARY 1953, INFORMING THE APPLICANT THAT HER ABILITY DID NOT ACCORD WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT, AND THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE WHICH CONFIRMED IT MUST BE ANNULLED .
IN CONSEQUENCE, SINCE THE ORAL CONTRACT CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE HIGH AUTHORITY ON 9 DECEMBER 1952 WAS NOT DULY PERFORMED, IT MUST NOW BE PERFORMED : THE APPLICANT MUST SERVE THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD PROVIDED FOR IN THE SAID CONTRACT UNDER PROPER CONDITIONS .
THE DURATION OF THIS PROBATIONARY PERIOD WAS ACCORDING TO BOTH PARTIES A MONTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULE USUALLY APPLIED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY AT THAT TIME . IT APPEARS FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY THAT THAT PERIOD WAS CONSIDERED TOO SHORT AND THAT AS A RESULT APPLICANTS WERE REQUIRED TO SERVE A PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS AS FROM THE BEGINNING OF 1953 . THE PROVISIONAL STAFF REGULATIONS OF 16 MARCH 1954 PROVIDED FOR A SIMILAR PROBATIONARY PERIOD AND IN JULY 1956 THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY EXTENDED THE PERIOD TO SIX MONTHS . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD SERVE HER NEW PERIOD OF PROBATION FOR A PERIOD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 36 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
4 . COMPENSATION CLAIMED BY THE APPLICANT
THE APPLICANT CLAIMS COMPENSATION EQUAL TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALARY ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY HER AND THAT OF STAFF IN THE SECOND CATEGORY .
THE COURT FINDS THAT IN VIEW OF THE UNCERTAINTY REGARDING THE RESULT WHICH THE FIRST PROBATIONARY PERIOD WOULD HAVE LED TO HAD IT BEEN DULY CONDUCTED AND IN CONSEQUENCE REGARDING THE APPLICANT'S POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT IN THE SECOND CATEGORY, THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION IN THE PRESENT CASE OF ANY CLEAR DAMAGES SUFFERED BY HER .
FURTHER THE APPLICANT HAS CLAIMED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HER REPLY NON-MATERIAL DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE IMPROPER NATURE OF THE DECISION OF 8 JANUARY 1953; THE COURT DOES NOT THINK IT RIGHT TO GRANT THE APPLICANT COMPENSATION UNDER THIS HEAD . IN THIS RESPECT ALSO ACCOUNT MUST BE TAKEN OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE RESULTS OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD