TO DISMISS HER WITH EFFECT FROM 28 FEBRUARY 1982 AS A RESULT OF HER UNFAVOURABLE PROBATIONARY REPORT RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL .
5 THE APPLICANT ' S REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PROBATIONARY REPORT AND THE APPLICANT ' S RESULTING DISMISSAL , A COMPLAINT WHICH WAS SUPPLEMENTED BY LETTER OF 26 MAY 1982 .
6 THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED BY LETTER OF 16 JULY 1982 FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE PARLIAMENT .
7 IN THE PROBATIONARY REPORT THE COMMENT ' ' UNSATISFACTORY ' ' WAS ENTERED UNDER THE FOLLOWING SEVEN HEADINGS : ( A ) KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY FOR THE WORK , ( B ) JUDGMENT AND ABILITY TO ADAPT , ( C ) INITIATIVE , ( D ) ABILITY TO ORGANIZE , ( E ) SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DEVOTION TO WORK , ( F ) QUALITY OF WORK AND ( G ) PUNCTUALITY . THAT ASSESSMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY A MEMORANDUM DRAWN UP BY MR VAN MULDERS , HEAD OF THE DUTCH TRANSLATION DIVISION , AND SIGNED BY MR HAARSMA , A LINGUISTIC ADVISER , AND MR VAN HEEL , A REVISER , TO RECORD THEIR AGREEMENT . THE MEMORANDUM INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE :
' ' THE COMPLAINTS WHICH WE HAVE IN RESPECT OF THIS PERSON MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS :
LACK OF INSIGHT AND GENERAL CULTURE RESULTING IN A FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND TEXTS PROPERLY .
CARELESS AND NONCHALANT CONDUCT : ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS HER THOUGHTLESSNESS ALMOST UPSET THE SMOOTH RUNNING OF THE DIVISION .
LACK OF INITIATIVE AND DEDICATION TO HER WORK : SHE HAS NOT MANAGED TO ACQUIRE AN ADEQUATE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE INSTITUTIONS WORK OR OF THE MOST ELEMENTARY CONCEPTS AND TERMS USED IN THE PARLIAMENT : IN ADDITION SHE IS SLOW IN HER WORK .
FAILURE TO WORK HARD ENOUGH AND POOR PUNCTUALITY .
LACK OF ORDER IN HER WORK . ' '
8 THE REPORT , WHICH WAS DATED 28 OCTOBER 1981 , WAS SIGNED BY MR PALMER , FOR THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL .
9 THE APPLICANT RAISES VARIOUS OBJECTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE REPORT . IT WAS PREMATURE , INASMUCH AS IT WAS DRAWN UP ON 21 SEPTEMBER 1981 , THAT IS TO SAY MORE THAN TWO MONTHS BEFORE THE END OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD . IT STATED , WRONGLY , THAT THE APPLICANT HAD COMPLETED TWO YEARS OF HIGHER EDUCATION , INSTEAD OF THE FOUR YEARS WHICH SHE HAD ACTUALLY COMPLETED . THE STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS ASPECTS OF HER WORK AS ' ' UNSATISFACTORY ' ' DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY CLARIFY THE WAY IN WHICH THE APPLICANT FAILED TO FULFIL HER DUTIES . THERE WAS A CONTRADICTION INASMUCH AS UNDER THE HEADING ' ' EFFICIENCY ' ' , HER ' ' SPEED OF EXECUTION ' ' WAS STATED TO BE SATISFACTORY , WHILST IN THE EXPLANATORY NOTE THE COMPLAINT WAS MADE THAT THE APPLICANT WAS ' ' SLOW IN HER WORK ' ' . MRS KROON , A REVISER , WAS NOT CONSULTED ; AND THE REPORT