FOR FIVE YEARS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH SHOW BY THEMSELVES CONDUCT INCOMPATIBLE WITH INTEGRATION UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
IT FOLLOWS THAT THE GROUND OF COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED .
C - THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION
1 . THE PERFORMANCE BY THE APPLICANT OF DUTIES HIGHER THAN THOSE OF HER GRADE AND SALARY
THE APPLICANT WHO WAS ENGAGED ON 1 JULY 1958 TO CARRY OUT ' ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES ' WAS CLASSIFIED IN CATEGORY C .
SHE WAS SOON GIVEN ' DRAFTING ' DUTIES, WHICH JUSTIFIED HER CLASSIFICATION IN CATEGORY B .
SHE WAS ACTUALLY CLASSIFIED IN THE LATTER CATEGORY AS FROM 1 JANUARY 1960 .
THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT HER DUTIES WERE REALLY ' PLANNING ' DUTIES AND RELATED TO CATEGORY A .
SHE POINTS OUT IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM THAT IN HER ESTABLISHMENT REPORT DATED 17 APRIL 1962 THERE APPEARS THE NOTE MADE BY THE DIRECTOR - GENERAL THAT ' THESE ARE CATEGORY A DUTIES '. THIS SIMPLE UNEXPLAINED NOTE IS NOT DECISIVE .
IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED, IN CARRYING OUT THE TASKS ENTRUSTED TO HER, SHOWED EVIDENCE OF ABILITY SUPERIOR TO THAT WHICH IS GENERALLY EXPECTED OF SERVANTS IN CATEGORY B, WHICH MIGHT HAVE ALLOWED CERTAIN PROSPECTS OF LATER PROMOTION TO EMPLOYMENT IN THE HIGHER GRADE . IT CLEARLY FOLLOWS, MOREOVER, FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE DEFENDANT AS TO THE REAL NATURE OF THE DUTIES OF THE APPLICANT THAT THE LATTER ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT ' DRAFTING ' DUTIES RELATED TO CATEGORY B, IN WHICH CATEGORY SHE WAS ACTUALLY PLACED AFTER A YEAR AND A HALF OF SERVICE .
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT SHE IN FACT CARRIED OUT DUTIES RELATED BY THEIR NATURE TO CATEGORY A . FURTHERMORE, SHE DID NOT POSSESS ANY OF THE QUALIFICATIONS NORMALLY REQUIRED FOR PROMOTION TO THAT GRADE . IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NO RIGHT TO COMPENSATION UNDER THIS HEADING .
2 . THE DAMAGE SUFFERED FROM THE DECISION AGAINST INTEGRATION AND OF DISMISSAL
ANY RIGHT OF THE APPLICANT TO COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGE WHICH THE DECISION AGAINST INTEGRATION AND OF DISMISSAL MAY HAVE CAUSED HER MUST IN THIS CASE BE DENIED . IN FACT THE DISPUTED DECISION DOES NOT SHOW ITSELF TO BE VITIATED BY ANY OF THE DEFECTS ALLEGED BY THE APPLICANT .
CONSEQUENTLY, TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE NATURE AND THE OBJECT OF THAT DECISION, IT CANNOT AMOUNT TO A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION AND THUS CAUSE UNLAWFUL DAMAGE UNLESS IT CONTAINS SUPERFLUOUS CRITICISM IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS NOT ALLEGED IN THE PRESENT CASE . FURTHER, THE REASONS FOR THE DISPUTED DECISION CONTAIN NO SUPERFLUOUS CRITICISM AND ARE LIMITED TO THE INDISPENSABLE MINIMUM .
3 . INADEQUACY OF NOTICE
IT IS NECESSARY TO STATE, FIRST OF ALL, THAT THE NOTICE OF ONE MONTH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT PROVIDED FOR IN THE APPLICANT'S CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT .
IN APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 102 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, THE APPLICANT HAS IN ADDITION