IF IT WERE ESTABLISHED THAT THOSE PROVISIONS WERE MANIFESTLY UNJUST OR VEXATIOUS OR THAT THE CONSENT OF THE APPLICANT HAD NOT BEEN FREELY GIVEN WHEN THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WAS CONCLUDED .
AS TO THE FIRST POINT, THE DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN THE SETTING UP OF A COMMUNITY RESEARCH CENTRE JUSTIFY THE FACT THAT DURING THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS THE DEFENDANT RESERVED TO ITSELF A CERTAIN FREEDOM OF ACTION .
AS TO THE SECOND POINT, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT EVEN ALLEGED THAT HE WAS UNDER ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE WHEN HE AGREED TO THE PERIOD OF ONE MONTH'S NOTICE .
2 . THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS THAT HE WAS NOT CLASSIFIED IN A HIGHER GRADE WHEN THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD CAME TO AN END, AND HE REFERS IN A GENERAL WAY TO THE ' RESPONSIBILITY OF HIS SUPERIORS ' FOR THE ' NON-FUNCTIONING ' OF THE DEPARTMENT AT ISPRA .
AS TO THE FIRST POINT, THE GRADING OF THE APPLICANT WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF HIS CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT . AS TO THE SECOND POINT, THE ABOVEMENTIONED ALLEGATIONS IN FACT TEND TO ATTRIBUTE HIS DISMISSAL TO FACTORS FOR WHICH HE HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY . THIS ARGUMENT IS REFUTED BY THE CONSIDERATIONS SET OUT ABOVE DURING THE EXAMINATION OF THE SECOND SUBMISSION .
IT FOLLOWS FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE THAT THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES MUST BE DISMISSED .
P.559
C - REMOVAL EXPENSES FROM PLACE OF ORIGIN TO PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND INSTALLATION ALLOWANCE
THE APPLICANT CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE DEFENDANT ON 18 APRIL 1963 REFUSING TO REIMBURSE THE APPLICANT'S REMOVAL EXPENSES AND TO PAY HIM THE INSTALLATION ALLOWANCE .
THE APPLICANT IS WRONG IN THINKING THAT THESE ALLOWANCES WERE GOVERNED, AS FAR AS HE WAS CONCERNED, EITHER BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EEC AND EAEC, OR BY THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE ECSC .
IN FACT THE FIRST OF THESE REGULATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO SERVANTS RECRUITED UNDER THE SO - CALLED BRUSSELS FORM OF CONTRACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS PROVISIONS TO THE CONTRARY .
THE APPLICATION BY ANALOGY OF THE SECOND OF THE SAID REGULATIONS TO THESE SERVANTS WAS EXCLUDED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEIR POSITION WAS GOVERNED BY THEIR CONTRACT OR BY GENERAL CIRCULARS DRAWN UP BY THE INSTITUTION .
THE APPLICANT'S CONTRACT CONTAINED NO REFERENCE TO THE QUESTIONS AT ISSUE, BUT THOSE QUESTIONS WERE NEVERTHELESS COVERED BY CIRCULAR NO 50, ISSUED BY THE DEFENDANT ON 24 FEBRUARY 1959 . THEREFORE IT IS ON THE BASIS OF THIS CIRCULAR THAT THE PRESENT GROUND OF COMPLAINT MUST BE CONSIDERED .
ACCORDING TO THE SAID CIRCULAR, THE RIGHT OF A SERVANT TO THE ALLOWANCES IN DISPUTE IS SUBJECT, IN PARTICULAR, TO A FAVOURABLE REPORT ON THE ABILITIES OF THE SERVANT MADE BY THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT .
IN THIS CASE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS TO WHETHER THAT CONDITION WAS FULFILLED . THE APPLICANT HOLDS A COPY