TO REORGANIZE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL VII ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION HAD DECIDED TO TRANSFER HIM TO DIVISION VII B 1 , ' ' MARKET POLICIES ; WORKING CONDITIONS ' ' AS FROM 1 NOVEMBER 1980 . THAT DECISION WAS CONFIRMED ON 9 FEBRUARY 1981 BY A LETTER SENT TO THE APPLICANT BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION .
6 IN HIS APPLICATION THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT THE EFFECT OF THE CONTESTED DECISION HAS BEEN TO LOWER HIS OFFICIAL STATUS , THAT IT HAS CAUSED THE LOSS OF HIS HEADSHIP OF DEPARTMENT , TAKEN AWAY HIS STAFF , AND MADE HIM ANSWERABLE TO A COLLEAGUE IN THE SAME GRADE THEREBY DEPRIVING HIM OF THE RESPONSIBILITY WHICH HE PREVIOUSLY HAD IN HIS OWN SPHERE OF ACTIVITY . HE FURTHER BELIEVES THAT THE MEASURE ADOPTED IN REGARD TO HIM IS A DISGUISED DISCIPLINARY MEASURE TAKEN BECAUSE HIS OPINIONS DIFFERED FROM THOSE OF HIS SUPERIORS ON VARIOUS ISSUES CONCERNING COMMUNITY TRANSPORT POLICY . FINALLY HE CONSIDERS THAT IN VIEW OF HIS AGE HIS ASSIGNMENT TO A NEW POST IS LIABLE TO PREJUDICE HIS CHANCES OF PROMOTION AND WILL CREATE A SITUATION IN WHICH IT WILL BE POSSIBLE TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE SERVICE OF THE COMMISSION WITHIN A SHORT WHILE .
7 THE COMMISSION CLAIMS THAT THE ABOLITION OF THE SPECIALIZED DEPARTMENT OF WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN IN CHARGE AND THE APPLICANT ' S ASSIGNMENT TO A NEW POST ARE PART OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION AFFECTING VARIOUS DIRECTORATES-GENERAL , INCLUDING THE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR TRANSPORT , WITH THE AIM OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS OF WHICH THEY ARE COMPOSED . DURING THAT REORGANIZATION NO LESS THAN 22 DIVISIONS AND 29 SPECIALIZED DEPARTMENTS WERE ABOLISHED , INCLUDING THE DEPARTMENT RUN BY THE APPLICANT WHICH IS NOW MERGED WITH FORMER DIVISION VI B 1 AND VII B 2 INTO THE NEW DIVISION VII B 1 . THE REORGANIZATION WAS PRECEDED BY EXTENSIVE CONSULTATIONS WITHIN THE DIRECTORATES-GENERAL CONCERNED IN WHICH THE APPLICANT PARTICIPATED .
8 IN THE COMMISSION ' S VIEW THE APPLICANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS CAUSE FOR URGENCY IN THIS CASE OR THAT THE CONTESTED MEASURE IS LIABLE TO CAUSE HIM ANY DAMAGE , MUCH LESS IRREPARABLE DAMAGE . THE DUTIES ASSIGNED TO HIM IN THE NEW DIVISION VII B 1 CORRESPOND WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF BASIC POSTS CONTAINED IN THE COMMISSION DECISION PUBLISHED IN STAFF COURIER NO 272 OF 4 SEPTEMBER 1973 . IF THE APPLICATION WERE GRANTED THE APPLICANT WOULD RESUME HIS PREVIOUS DUTIES ; AS TO HIS CHANCES OF PROMOTION THEY ARE IN NO WAY AFFECTED BY THE CONTESTED MEASURE . ON THE OTHER HAND A SUPSENSION OF THE CONTESTED DECISION WOULD SERIOUSLY PREJUDICE THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE BY PUTTING IN QUESTION THE REORGANIZATION OF THE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR TRANSPORT .
9 AS THE PARTIES HAVE ARGUED THEIR CASES IN FULL IN THEIR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND SENT TO THE COURT ALL THE DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN