WHEN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED :
( A ) A FAVOURABLE PROBATION REPORT;
( B ) A FAVOURABLE MEDICAL EXAMINATION; AND
( C ) PROOF OF INSTALLATION .
AS FAR AS THE CONDITION OF A FAVOURABLE PROBATION REPORT IS CONCERNED, IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS WHICH PRESCRIBE IT AS MEANING THAT THERE SHOULD BE NOT ONLY A FAVOURABLE PROBATION REPORT BUT ALSO NO DECISION OF DISMISSAL AT THE END OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD . INDEED, THE INSTALLATION OF A SERVANT AT THE PLACE WHERE THE INSTITUTION IS LOCATED, AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ALLOWANCE DUE, ARE ONLY JUSTIFIED WHEN THE PROBATION IS FOLLOWED BY THE CONTINUATION OF THE SERVANT'S EMPLOYMENT .
P . 32
BUT IN THIS CASE THE DECISION OF DISMISSAL IS IRREGULAR BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT BASED ON REASONS VALID IN LAW; SUCH A DECISION COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE REFUSAL TO PAY THE INSTALLATION ALLOWANCE . IT IS ALSO UNDENIABLE THAT A FAVOURABLE MEDICAL EXAMINATION TOOK PLACE .
AS FAR AS THE THIRD CONDITION IS CONCERNED, THE DEFENDANT HAS FORMALLY DECLARED IN THE ORAL PROCEDURE THAT THE APPLICANT HAD DEPOSITED WITH THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY A ONE YEAR TENANCY AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON 8 MAY 1959 IN LUXEMBOURG . THE FACT THAT THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT IS WITHIN THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD PROVIDES SIMPLE PROOF THAT THE APPLICANT RAN A CERTAIN RISK; IT FOLLOWS, THEREFORE, FROM THE EXISTENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT, THAT AT THE END OF HER PROBATION THE APPLICANT HAD PROVED HER INSTALLATION .
SINCE THE THREE ABOVEMENTIONED CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED, THE APPLICANT HAS A RIGHT TO PAYMENT OF THE INSTALLATION ALLOWANCE .
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR DISMISSAL
THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THE PERIOD OF NOTICE OF ONE MONTH, CONTAINED IN THE DECISION OF DISMISSAL, IS MANIFESTLY INADEQUATE, AND THAT IN THIS MATTER GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW, DERIVED FROM THE NATIONAL LAWS WHICH REFLECT THEM, ARE TO BE APPLIED . FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW A PERIOD OF NOTICE OF THREE MONTHS APPEARS REASONABLE . THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PAY TO THE APPLICANT THREE MONTHS' SALARY IN LIEU OF NOTICE .
BUT IN THIS CASE THE PERIOD OF NOTICE OF ONE MONTH IS THE SUBJECT OF A CONTRACTUAL CLAUSE CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT AND ACCEPTED BY THE APPLICANT .
IT IS PROPER THEREFORE TO ABIDE BY THIS TERM UNLESS THE COURT THINKS EITHER THAT IT IS PATENTLY UNJUST OR ONEROUS, OR THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT FREELY CONSENT TO IT .
CONCERNING THE FIRST POINT, THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER THAT SUCH A PERIOD OF NOTICE IS PATENTLY UNJUST OR ONEROUS IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT IS ONE OF AN INDETERMINATE PERIOD, DETERMINABLE AT ANY TIME BY EITHER SIDE .
P . 33
CONCERNING THE SECOND POINT, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT EVEN ALLEGED THAT SHE UNDERWENT ANY MORAL PRESSURE IN CONSENTING TO A PERIOD OF NOTICE OF ONE MONTH