CONSULTING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION BOARD .
4 BY A LETTER OF 23 APRIL 1975 THE HEAD OF DIVISION ASKED FOR EXPLANATIONS . THEN ON 30 APRIL 1975 HE ADDRESSED A MEMORANDUM DESCRIBED AS A ' WARNING ' TO THE APPLICANT , IN WHICH HE CRITICIZES BOTH THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR A TRAVEL ORDER HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO HIM AND THE FACT THAT THE MISSION HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT DESPITE HIS FORMAL OPPOSITION AND DURING A PERIOD WHEN , AS FAR AS HER ORDINARY DUTIES WERE CONCERNED , THE APPLICANT WAS ON SICK LEAVE .
5 FOLLOWING THIS NOTE , THE APPLICANT ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARIAT GENERAL OF THE COMMISSION A ' COMPLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ' , WHICH WAS LODGED ON 9 JUNE 1975 .
6 THE COMMISSION TOOK NO ACTION WITH REGARD TO THAT COMPLAINT EXCEPT FOR A LETTER DATED 22 OCTOBER 1975 IN WHICH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL FOR PERSONNEL DESCRIBED THE INCIDENT AS THE PRODUCT OF A ' MISUNDERSTANDING ' AND ASSURED THE APPLICANT THAT IT WOULD HAVE NO UNFAVOURABLE CONSEQUENCES FOR HER CAREER , CONCLUDING THAT IN HIS OPINION THE COMPLAINT ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION NO LONGER SERVED ANY PURPOSE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES .
7 AFTER THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN LODGED ON 22 DECEMBER 1975 , THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMMISSION TRIED ONCE MORE , THROUGH THE HEAD OF DIRECTORATE G OF DIRECTORATE GENERAL VI , TO SETTLE AMICABLY THE DIFFICULTIES WHICH HAD ARISEN BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND HER SUPERIOR .
8 ON THAT OCCASION THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED THAT THE LATTER WAS WILLING TO RECOGNIZE ' THAT AT THE TIME SHE HAD BEEN IN A DIFFICULT POSITION AND THAT SHE WAS FACED WITH A CONFLICT OF DUTY ' AND THAT HE WAS PREPARED TO CONSIDER THE INCIDENT AS CLOSED .
9 THE APPLICANT HOWEVER REFUSED TO ACCEPT THIS PROPOSAL AND CONTINUED WITH HER ACTION AT LAW .
10 THE CONCLUSIONS IN HER APPLICATION ARE FOR THE ANNULMENT BY THE COURT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF 30 APRIL 1975 , THE ANNULMENT OF THE REFUSAL OF THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT THE COMPLAINT OF 9 JUNE 1975 AND FOR A SERIES OF DECLARATIONS AND ORDERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THAT THE TRAVEL ORDER SOUGHT WAS WRONGFULLY REFUSED , ACKNOWLEDGING THE APPLICANT ' S ' DEVOTION TO DUTY ' , DECLARING ' THE BASELESSNESS OF THE ACCUSATIONS ' MADE AGAINST HER AND BRINGING THESE DECLARATIONS TO THE NOTICE OF ALL PERSONS CONCERNED IN THIS MATTER .
11 FURTHER , THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE AWARD OF THE SYMBOLIC SUM OF FB 1 BY WAY OF COMPENSATION FOR THE INJURY SUFFERED WITH REGARD TO HER OFFICIAL REPUTATION , HAVING REGARD TO THE ' INSINUATIONS AND ANNOYANCES ' TO WHICH SHE IS STILL BEING SUBJECTED AT THE PRESENT TIME IN HER DAILY WORK .
ADMISSIBILITY
12 AS THE COMMISSION HAS CHALLENGED THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN HEADS OF THE APPLICATION , THE COURT REQUESTED THE APPLICANT TO SPECIFY THE WAY IN WHICH , IN