: ' ' I SHOULD THEREFORE BE GRATEFUL IF AFTER CONTACTING YOUR HEAD OF DIVISION , MR PIGNOT , YOU WOULD PRESENT YOURSELF ON 2 JANUARY 1980 TO MR DALLINGA , THE HEAD OF THE DUTCH TRANSLATION DIVISION , WHO WILL INFORM YOU OF YOUR NEW DUTIES . ' '
6 ON 17 SEPTEMBER 1979 MR KINDERMANN SENT TO MR CIANCIO A LETTER IN WHICH HE CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF 22 AUGUST 1979 . THE FOLLOWING 3 OCTOBER HE LODGED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THAT DECISION . THE NEXT DAY HE RECEIVED THE DECISION SIGNED BY MR TUGENDHAT AGAINST WHICH HE LODGED A COMPLAINT ON 12 OCTOBER 1979 WHICH REMAINED UNANSWERED DURING THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS .
ADMISSIBILITY
7 THE COMMISSION CHALLENGES THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE DECISION OF 4 OCTOBER 1979 DID NOT , AS A MATTER OF ORGANIZATION , CHANGE THE APPLICANT ' S POSTING OR A FORTIORI HIS POSITION UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS . IN PRACTICE , IT MEANT NOTHING MORE THAN THAT THE APPLICANT CEASED TO BE PLACED AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION AND WAS REASSIGNED ALONG WITH HIS POST FROM DIVISION IX-D-3 TO DIVISION IX-D-8 . FURTHER , THE NATURE AND LEVEL OF THE TRANSLATION DUTIES CARRIED OUT BY MR KINDERMANN WERE NOT CHANGED . IT WAS THEREFORE ONLY A SIMPLE MEASURE OF INTERNAL ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT NOT CAPABLE OF HAVING ADVERSE EFFECT AND THUS NOT THE KIND OF MEASURE CAPABLE OF BEING ANNULLED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
8 EVEN IF A DECISION SUCH AS THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT AFFECT THE MATERIAL INTERESTS OR THE RANK OF AN OFFICIAL IT MAY , HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE DUTIES IN QUESTION AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES , ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NON-MATERIAL INTERESTS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS OF THE OFFICER CONCERNED . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ASSUME IN ADVANCE THAT IT IS NOT CAPABLE OF ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE PERSON CONCERNED .
9 THE ACTION MUST THEREFORE BE HELD TO BE ADMISSIBLE .
SUBSTANCE
10 DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE THE APPLICANT PUT FORWARD ULTIMATELY ONLY TWO SUBMISSIONS AGAINST THE CONTESTED DECISION , THE FIRST ALLEGING INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IN SO FAR AS ON THE ONE HAND THE PROCEDURE FOR WHICH THAT PROVISION PROVIDES IN THE CASE OF TRANSFER WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH AND ON THE OTHER THAT THE DECISION IN QUESTION WAS NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE . THE SECOND SUBMISSION ALLEGES THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MISUSE OF POWERS .
11 IT IS APPARENT FROM A CONSIDERATION OF THOSE SUBMISSIONS AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENCE THAT THE PARTIES DISAGREE AS TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE IN QUESTION . THE APPLICANT TAKES THE VIEW THAT HE WAS TRANSFERRED WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WHEREAS ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION WHAT WAS DONE WAS , IN FORMAL TERMS , TO REASSIGN THE APPLICANT