CONTENDS THAT THE MAIN APPLICATION IS UNFOUNDED AND CONSIDERS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUFFERED IRREPARABLE OR IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF THE OPERATION OF THE CONTESTED DECISION .
19 SINCE THE PARTIES HAVE STATED THEIR RESPECTIVE POINTS OF VIEW FULLY IN THEIR WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND HAVE SUBMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTS WHICH MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ORDER THAT JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN ON THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES , IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONDUCT ANY PREPARATORY INQUIRY OR TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT FROM THE PARTIES .
20 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , IT IS FOR THE APPLICANT TO ESTABLISH , ON THE ONE HAND , THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE INTERIM MEASURES APPLIED FOR ( FUMUS BONI JURIS ).
21 IT MUST BE STATED IN THIS CASE , WITHOUT IN ANY WAY PREJUDGING THE DECISION ON THE MAIN APPLICATION , THAT THE GROUNDS PUT FORWARD FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES HAVE NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED . IT IS THEREFORE UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE FIRST CONDITION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ).
22 WITH REGARD TO THE ALLEGED PARTIALITY OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL AND HIS ALLEGED FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE , IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT THE PERSONS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS MUST NOT BE BIASED AND MUST BE PREPARED TO LISTEN TO ALL THE OBSERVATIONS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PERSON CONCERNED . HOWEVER , THE WORDING OF THE LETTER OF 28 OCTOBER 1985 AND THE REPORT DATED 4 MARCH 1986 DO NOT DISCLOSE THAT THE SECRETARY GENERAL WAS PREJUDICED AGAINST MR M . AND WAS NOT PREPARED TO LISTEN TO HIS EXPLANATIONS . IN THE LETTER OF 28 OCTOBER MR M . IS EXPRESSLY REQUESTED TO SUBMIT HIS OBSERVATIONS . AS REGARDS THE REPORT DATED 4 MARCH , IT IS CLEAR THAT THAT REPORT WAS INTENDED MERELY TO ESTABLISH AND APPRAISE THE FACTS . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE FIRST SUBMISSION IS PRIMA FACIE UNFOUNDED .
23 WITH REGARD TO THE FAILURE TO STATE THE REASONS FOR IMPOSING A MORE SEVERE DISCIPLINARY MEASURE , IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DECISION ITSELF , IN PARTICULAR PAGES 6 AND 7 THEREOF , THAT THE SECRETARY GENERAL STATES THE REASONS FOR WHICH , HAVING FAILED TO FIND ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE HIM , HE CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY TO DEPART FROM THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD ' S REASONED OPINION . CONSEQUENTLY , THE SECOND SUBMISSION CANNOT PRIMA FACIE BE UPHELD .
24 WITH REGARD TO THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 7 OF ANNEX IX TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS , WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD IS TO DELIVER A REASONED OPINION WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE DATE ON WHICH THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO IT , IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD FAILED