EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT OF A PROCEDURE TO FILL THE POST OF A PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATOR ( CAREER BRACKET A 5/A 4 ) IN THE LEGAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF THAT DIRECTORATE GENERAL ( VACANCY NOTICE NO 3285 OF 3 NOVEMBER 1981 ).
2 THE APPLICANT , WHO WAS ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 45 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , HAD APPLIED FOR THE VACANT POST , THE VACANCY NOTICE FOR WHICH STATED THAT THE POST WOULD BE FILLED FOR PREFERENCE BY MEANS OF TRANSFER OR PROMOTION .
3 BY DECISION OF 6 MAY 1982 , THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ORDERED THE IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF THE POST TO THE TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS DIVISION OF DIRECTORATE GENERAL IV . SINCE THAT TRANSFER ENTAILED A CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF THE DUTIES ATTACHING TO THE POST , THE ADMINISTRATION CANCELLED THE PROCEDURE TO FILL THE POST AND INFORMED THE APPLICANT THEREOF BY MEANS OF A NOTIFICATION SLIP BEARING THE WORDS ' ' PROCEDURE CANCELLED BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ' ' .
4 ON 29 JULY 1982 , MR MORINA LODGED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THAT CANCELLATION UNDER ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND ASKED TO BE INFORMED OF THE REASONS THEREFOR . BY LETTER OF 3 NOVEMBER 1982 THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT REJECTED THE COMPLAINT , STATING THAT THE PROCEDURE FOR FILLING THE POST HAD BEEN INTERRUPTED BECAUSE THE POST HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO DIRECTORATE GENERAL IV AND THE TRANSFER HAD MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PROCEDURE TO CONTINUE ON THE BASIS OF THE VACANCY NOTICE . THE LETTER ADDED THAT ' ' THE DECISIONS TAKEN WERE ADOPTED FOR IMPERATIVE REASONS RELATING TO THE SERVICE AND HAVE NO PERSONAL CONNECTION WITH YOUR APPLICATION ' ' .
5 THIS APPLICATION , WHICH WAS LODGED ON 7 FEBRUARY 1983 , SEEKS ON THE ONE HAND CANCELLATION OF THE DECISION TRANSFERRING THE POST AND , ON THE OTHER , A FINDING THAT THE INTERRUPTION OF THE PROCEDURE FOR FILLING THE POST WAS UNLAWFUL .
ADMISSIBILITY
6 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , WITHOUT FORMALLY RAISING AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY , HAS EXPRESSED DOUBTS REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION IN SO FAR AS ITS SUBJECT-MATTER IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE COMPLAINT . THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE REGARDED , IT STATES , AS A MERE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AS TO THE REASONS FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE PROCEDURE FOR FILLING THE POST , WHEREAS THE APPLICATION SEEKS ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION TRANSFERRING THE POST .
7 IT IS APPARENT FROM THE COMPLAINT THAT , WHILST THE APPLICANT DID IN FACT ASK FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE REASONS FOR CANCELLATION OF THE PROCEDURE FOR FILLING THE POST , HE ALSO TOOK CARE TO EXPLAIN THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF CLARIFICATION AS TO THOSE REASONS HE WOULD BE OBLIGED TO BRING AN ACTION BEFORE THE COURT FOR ANNULMENT OF A DECISION WHICH MANIFESTLY AFFECTED HIM ADVERSELY . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , THERE IS NO DISPARITY BETWEEN THE COMPLAINT AND THE APPLICATION AND THE APPLICATION