";
( B ) " THAT, IN REPLY TO MR STEMPELS, ATTACHE IN MR HALLSTEIN 'S CABINET, MR VAN RIEMSDIJK, REVISER IN THE DUTCH SECTION, DECLARED THAT THE APPLICANT'S WORK WAS IN EVERY WAY SATISFACTORY AND THAT, IN HIS OPINION, THERE WAS NO REASON WHY HE SHOULD BE DISMISSED APART, OF COURSE, FROM THE ARTICLE ALREADY MENTIONED ".
ON 20 JUNE 1960 THE COURT ORDERED THAT THE FACTS HEREINBEFORE MENTIONED BE PROVED BY WITNESSES, AND THE WITNESSES SUMMONED BY THE COURT GAVE EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING ON 1 OCTOBER 1960 .
P . 546
IN HIS EVIDENCE, MR GUMMERER STATED THAT HE HAD NEVER GIVEN THE APPLICANT THE ASSURANCE WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE FIRST FACT TO BE PROVED; THAT AS HE DOES NOT KNOW DUTCH HE WAS NOT HIMSELF IN A POSITION TO ASSESS THE QUALITY OF THE WORK PERFORMED BY THE APPLICANT; THAT, IN ORDER TO DO SO, HE HAD TO RELY ON THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE DUTCH REVISERS; AND THAT ALTHOUGH IN HIS CAPACITY AS HEAD OF THE TRANSLATION SERVICE AND THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS EFFICIENT WORKING, HE HAD FELT OBLIGED TO MAKE SOME COMMENT TO THE APPLICANT CONCERNING THE PUBLICATION OF THE ARTICLE REFERRED TO, HE NEVERTHELESS CONSIDERED ITS PUBLICATION AS A " SUPEROGATORY " AND NOT A " FURTHER " REASON TO THOSE WHICH LED HIM TO RECOMMEND THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO DISPENSE WITH THE SERVICES OF THE APPLICANT IN THE LANGUAGE SERVICE .
IN HIS EVIDENCE, MR VAN RIEMSDIJK STATED THAT HE HAD NEVER DECLARED THAT THE APPLICANT'S WORK WAS " SATISFACTORY IN EVERY RESPECT "; THAT, ON THE CONTRARY, HE HAD EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT, WHILST THE APPLICANT WAS NOT SO UNSATISFACTORY AS TO JUSTIFY DISPENSING WITH HIS SERVICES, HE WAS NEVERTHELESS NOT A GOOD TRANSLATOR; AND THAT, IN HIS CONVERSATION WITH MR STEMPELS, HE HAD REFERRED TO PUBLICATION OF THE PRESS ARTICLE ATTRIBUTED TO THE APPLICANT AS A VERY MINOR CONSIDERATION .
MR STEMPELS CONFIRMED THE EVIDENCE GIVEN MR VAN RIEMSDIJK .
QUESTIONED BY THE COURT IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION IN THE COMMISSION OF THE EEC, MR VAN KARNEBEEK TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD INTERVIEWED THE APPLICANT CONCERNING PUBLICATION OF THE PRESS ARTICLE AS SOON AS IT APPEARED AND THAT, AFTER THE INTERVIEW, HE HAD CONSIDERED THE INCIDENT TO BE CLOSED .
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 47 ( 6 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, THE ABOVE-NAMED WITNESSES SIGNED THE MINUTES OF THEIR EVIDENCE AND, AFTER GIVING THEIR EVIDENCE, MESSRS GUMMERER AND VAN RIEMSDIJK TOOK THE OATH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 47 ( 5 ) OF THE SAID RULES .
THE TESTIMONY HEREINBEFORE DESCRIBED DID NOT CONFIRM THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF HIS COMPLAINT OF MISUSE OF POWERS .
THE APPLICANT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE LACK OF ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE IN THE CONTESTED DECISION TO DISMISS HIM IS PROVED BY THE FACT THAT ANOTHER TRANSLATOR IN THE DUTCH SECTION,