DISMISSAL AND , IN THE ALTERNATIVE , TO PAY COMPENSATION OF 480 000 BFRS EQUAL TO 10 MONTHS ' SALARY .
3 THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS FIRST THAT HER PROBATIONARY PERIOD WAS CURTAILED AND DID NOT PROVIDE CONDITIONS ENABLING HER ABILITY TO BE ASSESSED .
4 IT IS IN NO WAY EXCEPTIONAL FOR THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD TO INCLUDE ANNUAL LEAVE DURING WHICH NUMEROUS OFFICIALS ARE ABSENT AND THE AMOUNT OF WORK IS REDUCED ; THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD DID NOT ENABLE THE APPLICANT ' S SKILL TO BE ASSESSED .
5 WHILST IT APPEARS THAT ON SOME DAYS THE APPLICANT WAS LEFT WITHOUT WORK THIS IS EXPLAINED BY THE FACT THAT WORK SUITABLE FOR PROBATIONERS IS NOT ALWAYS AVAILABLE AND THEY ARE EXPECTED TO MAKE USE OF SUCH PERIODS TO IMPROVE THEIR LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE .
6 THE APPLICANT ALLEGES THAT HER SUPERIORS ' REFUSED ' TO GIVE HER WORK AFTER 29 NOVEMBER 1974 BUT THIS WAS BECAUSE ON THAT DATE THE REPORT ON THE EXPIRY OF HER PROBATIONARY PERIOD HAD BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 34 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , SO THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD ADOPTED ITS OPINION .
7 SECONDLY IT IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE TO UPHOLD THE APPLICANT ' S COMPLAINT WITH REGARD TO THE LACK OF FOUNDATION FOR THE DECISION TAKEN IN RESPECT OF HER , TO THE ABSENCE OF EXAMINATION OF HER WORK BY HER SUPERIOR , THE HEAD OF THE DUTCH TRANSLATION DIVISION , AND TO THE INCAPACITY OF THE OFFICIALS WHO SIGNED THE REPORT AT THE EXPIRY OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD TO ASSESS HER ABILITY IN VIEW OF THEIR IGNORANCE OF THE DUTCH LANGUAGE .
8 THE DIRECTOR OF THE TRANSLATION , DOCUMENTATION , REPRODUCTION AND LIBRARY DIRECTORATE AND THE HEAD OF THE TRANSLATION ( GENERAL MATTERS ) DIVISION WERE IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE COORDINATOR OF THE GROUP IN WHICH THE APPLICANT WAS WORKING AND WERE THUS , IN CONJUNCTION WITH HER IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR , IN A POSITION TO ASSESS THE APPLICANT ' S ABILITY , THE ASSESSMENT WHICH THEY MADE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WITHOUT FOUNDATION .
9 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THESE COMPLAINTS ARE WITHOUT FOUNDATION .
10 THE APPLICANT FURTHER COMPLAINS THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION WAS ONLY NOTIFIED TO HER AFTER THE END OF HER PROBATIONARY PERIOD .
11 SHE STATES THAT THE DECISION IN QUESTION , WHICH TOOK EFFECT ON 16 JANUARY 1975 , WAS ONLY NOTIFIED TO HER THE NEXT DAY AND WAS ONLY CONFIRMED IN A LETTER RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT ON 21 JANUARY .
12 ARTICLE 34 RELATING TO CASES IN WHICH THE EMPLOYMENT OF AN OFFICIAL IS TERMINATED AT THE END OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD DOES NOT LAY DOWN ANY PRECISE TIME-LIMIT FOR THE NOTIFICATION OF THIS DECISION BUT ALLOWS THE INSTITUTION A REASONABLE PERIOD AT THE END OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD IN WHICH TO DO SO .
13 THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT WHO ALREADY WAS AWARE OF THE ASSESSMENTS