HOWEVER, THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED FOR INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS ARE MANDATORY IN NATURE AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE PARTIES OR OF THE COURT . THE PRESENT CASE IS PARTICULARLY WELL SUITED TO DEMONSTRATE HOW JUSTIFIED THIS RULE IS, SINCE THE PROCEEDINGS CONCERN NOT ONLY THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTION BUT ALSO, AND POSSIBLY TO A GREATER DEGREE, THE OFFICIAL WHOSE APPOINTMENT IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPLICATION .
THE PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION IS, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE ANNULMENT OF THE APPOINTMENT OF MRS GRAF AND AN ORDER THAT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD APPOINT THE APPLICANT WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT TO THE POST FOR WHICH SHE HAD COMPETED .
IN THE SECOND PLACE, ITS PURPOSE IS AN AWARD OF DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME WHICH THE APPLICANT IS SAID TO HAVE SUFFERED BY REASON OF THE DECISION NOT TO APPOINT HER, AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THIS DECISION CAME ABOUT ARE SAID TO AMOUNT TO A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTION .
THE FIRST HEAD OF CLAIM IN THE APPLICATION TAKES THE FORM OF A CLAIM DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPLIED REFUSAL RESULTING FROM THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO GIVE A REPLY TO THE COMPLAINT WHICH IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE APPLICANT IN HER LETTER OF 13 OCTOBER 1966 .
THIS LETTER, HOWEVER, REFERS TO THE REQUEST WHICH THE APPLICANT MADE ON 2 SEPTEMBER 1966 TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN WHICH SHE ASKED HIM ' TO EXAMINE TO WHAT EXTENT AND BY WHAT MEANS YOU CONSIDER THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO MAKE UP FOR THE INJURY WHICH I HAVE SUFFERED TO MY GOOD NAME AND TO MY CAREER PROSPECTS '. THE LETTER OF 13 OCTOBER DOES NO MORE THAN STATE THAT THE REQUESTS MADE ON 2 SEPTEMBER ARE NOW TO BE REGARDED AS FORMALLY SUBMITTED WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS . THE LETTER OF 13 OCTOBER 1966 VIRTUALLY CROSSED WITH A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF 17 OCTOBER 1966 WHICH FULLY ANSWERED THE REQUEST CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF 2 SEPTEMBER 1966 TO WHICH THE LETTER OF 13 OCTOBER 1966 REFERRED . THE CLAIM THAT THE REQUEST THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS IS ONLY CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF 13 OCTOBER 1966 AND THAT THE LETTER OF 17 OCTOBER DOES NOT REPLY TO IT CANNOT THEREFORE SUCCEED .
DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT AGAIN REFERRED TO CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE WHICH ARE SAID TO BE CAPABLE OF PROVING THAT THE LETTER OF 17 OCTOBER 1966 DID NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL VIEWS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY . HOWEVER, SUCH STATEMENTS WHICH, MOREOVER, ARE DIFFICULT TO VERIFY BY REASON OF THEIR CONFIDENTIAL NATURE, CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION . THUS THERE WAS NO IMPLIED REFUSAL IN THE PRESENT CASE .
THUS, EVEN SUPPOSING THAT THE REQUEST THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS DID INDEED REFER TO THE APPOINTMENT OF MRS