AS THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT , WHICH BECAME INDEFINITE , THE TRANSFER OF THE POST FROM BUDGET HEADING A 3 TO BUDGET HEADING A 5/4 ACP/TEMPORARY AND , FINALLY , THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP INASMUCH AS THE APPLICANT WAS RECRUITED AS A PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATOR IN GRADE A 4 . THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES CORRESPONDING TO EACH BASIC POST AND COULD NOT THEREFORE EXPECT TO BE ENTRUSTED WITH THE SAME DUTIES AS THOSE WHICH HE HAD PERFORMED UNDER HIS PREVIOUS CONTRACT .
18 THE FACT THAT , FOR APPROXIMATELY FOUR MONTHS PRIOR TO MR GRUMBACH ' S ARRIVAL IN GENEVA , THE APPLICANT CONTINUED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES WHICH HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO HIM UNDER THE CONTRACT CONCLUDED IN 1978 AND THAT DURING THAT PERIOD HE THEREFORE CARRIED OUT DUTIES WHICH WERE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOSE ASSIGNED TO HIM UNDER THE CONTRACT CONCLUDED IN 1980 IS NOT A DECISIVE CONSIDERATION EITHER . PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , WHICH ALSO APPLIES TO TEMPORARY SERVANTS BY VIRTUE OF THE REFERENCE TO THAT PROVISION CONTAINED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT , ANY OFFICIAL MAY BE CALLED UPON TO OCCUPY TEMPORARILY AND FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR , A POST IN A HIGHER CAREER BRACKET ; HE MAY NOT REFUSE SUCH A TEMPORARY POSTING OR THEREBY ACQUIRE ANY ENTITLEMENT TO RE-CLASSIFICATION . ACCORDINGLY , THE AFOREMENTIONED CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT ANY RIGHT TO BE RE-GRADED OR TO HAVE THE DESCRIPTION OF HIS DUTIES AMENDED IN HIS EXISTING CONTRACT . IT IS CLEAR , ON THE OTHER HAND , THAT FOLLOWING THE NOTE OF 9 JANUARY 1981 AND THE ARRIVAL IN GENEVA OF ANOTHER OFFICIAL IN GRADE A 3 , MORE RESTRICTED DUTIES WERE ASSIGNED TO THE APPLICANT WHICH CORRESPONDED PRECISELY TO THE GRADE AND TO THE DESCRIPTION CONTAINED IN THE CONTESTED CONTRACT .
19 THE CONCLUSION MUST THEREFORE BE DRAWN THAT , IN THE PRESENT CASE , THERE HAS BEEN NO BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT AN OFFICIAL ' S GRADING MUST CORRESPOND TO THE POST WHICH HE OCCUPIES .
20 IN HIS SECOND SUBMISSION CONCERNING THIS CLAIM , THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT IN DOWNGRADING HIM BY COMPARISON WITH HIS CLASSIFICATION IN THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT THE COMMISSION ACTED IN BREACH OF ITS DUTY OF ASSISTANCE , PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 24 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , AND OF A NUMBER OF OTHER UNWRITTEN DUTIES , IN PARTICULAR ITS DUTY TO PROVIDE FOR THE WELFARE OF ITS OFFICIALS ( ' ' FURSORGEPFLICHT ' ' ).
21 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED EITHER . THE REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 25 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS NOT RELEVANT SINCE THAT PROVISION IS CONCERNED WITH THE DEFENCE OF OFFICIALS AGAINST THE ACTS OF THIRD PARTIES AND NOT AGAINST ACTS EMANATING FROM THE INSTITUTION ITSELF ( JUDGMENT OF 25 MARCH 1982 IN CASE 98/81 MUNK ( 1982 ) ECR