1973 TO 30 JUNE 1975 WAS ONLY DRAWN UP AFTER THE OTHER CANDIDATE HAD BEEN APPOINTED .
15THE APPLICANT ADDS THAT THE FACT THAT FOR MANY YEARS SHE HAD PERFOMED DE FACTO DUTIES ( OF HEAD CLERK ) CORRESPONDING TO A GRADE HIGHER THAN HER OWN WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT .
16SHE FURTHER STATES THAT THE VACANCY NOTICE AT ISSUE WAS DRAWN UP NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE BUT IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OTHER CANDIDATE , WHICH WAS ALREADY AGREED BEFOREHAND .
17ALTHOUGH , UNDER ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ), AN OFFICIAL CANNNOT BE COMPELLED TO PERFORM DUTIES CORRESPONDING TO A GRADE HIGHER THAN HIS OWN , EXCEPT ON A TEMPORARY POSTING , THE FACT THAT HE AGREES TO PERFORM THEM MAY BE A FACTOR TO BE BORNE IN MIND IN CONNEXION WITH PROMOTION , BUT DOES NOT GIVE HIM THE RIGHT TO BE RECLASSIFIED .
18ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE AGENCY REQUESTED THE CREATION OF TWO POSTS IN GRADE B 1 , ONE TO BE ASSIGNED TO WASHINGTON AND THE OTHER TO BRUSSELS , JUSTIFIED BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS LED HIM SUBSEQUENTLY TO SUBMIT ONLY A SINGLE APPLICATION CONCERNING THE POST FOR WASHINGTON .
19BY DECIDING TO GIVE PRIORITY IN THAT WAY TO THE POST TO BE CREATED IN WASHINGTON , THE AGENCY THEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE DUTIES APPERTAINING TO THAT POST INVOLVED ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES , IN PARTICULAR HAVING REGARD TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RELATIONS TO BE MAINTAINED WITH THE UNITED STATES CIRCLES CONCERNED .
20THE APPLICANT ' S AGE AND SENIORITY IN THE GRADE AND POST , EVEN THOUGH SUPERIOR TO THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE ' S , MUST NOT PREVAIL OVER THE NATURE OF THE DUTIES TO BE CARRIED OUT .
21AS REGARDS THE ABSENCE OF HER LAST PERIODIC REPORT , THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THIS WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPARATIVE MERITS OF THE CANDIDATES - IF IT HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT - FROM TAKING , PLACE UNDER THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS .
22HOWEVER , THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN IN WHAT WAY THE ABSENCE OF THE SAID REPORT COULD HAVE BEEN PREJUDICIAL TO HER , SINCE IT COULD NOT HAVE ADDED ANYTHING TO THE EXCELLENT ASSESSMENTS MADE IN THE EARLIER REPORTS .
23THE APPLICATION IS UNFOUNDED AND MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
Decision on costs
COSTS
24UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
25THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HER SUBMISSIONS .
26HOWEVER , UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , IN PROCEEDINGS BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES , INSTITUTIONS MUST BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;
2 . ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .