THAT THE DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD REGARDED AS INSUFFICIENT HIS CHOICE OF THE TEXTS OF LEGAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING INSURANCE AND THE COMPENSATION OF STAFF EXPOSED TO NUCLEAR RADIATION WERE ALSO INCOMPLETE AND THAT IN ITS FINAL FORM THIS WORK HAD INCLUDED SIX ADDITIONAL PAGES CONCERNING INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS AND HAD CONTAINED A CERTAIN NUMBER OF REFERENCE CARDS .
THE DEFENDANT HAS REPLIED THAT IT WAS UNABLE TO FIND THE ABOVE-MENTIONED DOCUMENTS IN THE ARCHIVES OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISION .
MOREOVER, THE CRITICISMS MADE BY THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD DID NOT REFER TO OMISSIONS IN THE WORK, BUT RATHER TO ITS NATURE AND ITS LEVEL .
THE PRESENT COMPLAINT IS THEREFORE UNFOUNDED .
( E ) THE APPLICANT CRITICIZES THE STATEMENT IN THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD'S OPINION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TECHNICAL CARD-INDEX WHICH HE HAD PREPARED REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES ' CANNOT BE REGARDED AS CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF THE SPIRIT OF INITIATIVE REQUIRED FROM AN OFFICIAL IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISION WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SOCIAL PROBLEMS '.
WHILST AGREEING THAT THE APPLICANT MADE TO SOME EXTENT A PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE WORK IN QUESTION, THE EVIDENCE OF DR MASSART, DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL SERVICES, CONFIRMS THE REPORT OF THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD BY STATING THAT IT IS OF NO GREAT INTEREST TO THE DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY .
MOREOVER, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT A PIECE OF WORK WHICH IS LARGELY MADE UP OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF THE EAEC COMMISSION OR THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE CANNOT BE USED AS A BASIS ON WHICH TO ASSESS THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO PERFORM THE DUTIES TO WHICH HE WAS ASSIGNED .
THE PRESENT COMPLAINT IS THEREFORE UNFOUNDED .
3 . THE THIRD SUBMISSION : MISUSE OF POWERS
THE APPLICANT ALLEGES THAT THE AIM OF THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD WAS NOT TO MAKE AN OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF HIS ABILITIES, BUT RATHER TO OUST HIM FROM HIS POSITION AND THEN LOOK FOR AN EXCUSE WHICH WOULD GIVE A SEMBLANCE OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS DECISION TO REMOVE HIM WHICH IT HAD ALREADY TAKEN, AND THAT IT IS SIGNIFICANT IN THIS RESPECT THAT ON 29 OCTOBER 1965, THAT IS, IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE INTEGRATION PROCEDURE BEGAN, HE LEARNT THAT HIS POST OF HEAD OF DIVISION FOR SOCIAL PROBLEMS HAD BEEN ABOLISHED .
P . 167
IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE MISUSE OF POWERS WHICH HE ALLEGES .
THIS SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED .
B - THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE ONLY QUESTION REMAINING TO BE SETTLED IS WHETHER THE PERIOD OF ONE MONTH'S NOTICE PROVIDED FOR IN THE APPLICANT'S CONTRACT CONCLUDED BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS CAN BE REGARDED AS SUFFICIENT .
ON HIS DISMISSAL THE APPLICANT HAD MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS' SERVICE AND HELD A POST EQUIVALENT TO HEAD OF DIVISION ( GRADE A 3 ).
THE APPLICANT THUS REMAINED IN THE SERVICE OF THE COMMISSION WELL BEYOND THE