DOES ADVERSELY AFFECT THE OFFICIAL IF A FAVOURABLE DECISION CONCERNING HIM, SUCH AS A PROMOTION, OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN DURING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE PERIODIC REPORT IS LACKING, AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN THAT REGARD FOR THE OFFICIAL TO ESTABLISH A CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN THE FAILURE TO ADOPT SUCH A DECISION AND THE ABSENCE OF THE REPORT .
10 HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT MERELY CLAIMS THAT THE DELAY IN DRAWING UP HER PERIODIC REPORT AFFECTED THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HER CAREER, WITHOUT SAYING IN WHAT RESPECT PRECISELY IT DID SO . IN PARTICULAR, SHE DOES NOT CLAIM THAT A DECISION CONCERNING THE PROGRESS OF HER CAREER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN DURING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE PERIODIC REPORT WAS LACKING . ACCORDINGLY, THE FIRST SUBMISSION MUST BE REJECTED .
11 SECONDLY, THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT THE COMMISSION FAILED TO FULFIL THE DUTY IMPOSED ON IT BY ARTICLE 5 ( 2 ) OF THE GUIDE TO STAFF REPORTS TO EXPLAIN ANY CHANGE IN THE ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENTS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REPORT .
12 IN HIS MEMORANDUM OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1985 THE APPEAL ASSESSOR CONFIRMED THE ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE PERIOD 1982-83, WHICH WERE LESS FAVOURABLE THAN THOSE FOR THE REPORT COVERING THE PERIOD 1975-77 . HE POINTED OUT THAT "HE HAD READ THE PREVIOUS PERIODIC REPORT, COVERING THE PERIOD 1975-77" BUT THAT "IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT APPLIED AT THAT PERIOD WAS NOT QUITE THE SAME AND THAT, ABOVE ALL, THE (( APPLICANT' S )) DUTIES HAD CHANGED AFTER 20 OCTOBER 1981 ".
13 THOSE REMARKS INDICATE THAT, RATHER THAN EXPLAIN THE CHANGES IN THE ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENTS COMPARED WITH THOSE GIVEN IN THE PREVIOUS REPORT, THE APPEAL ASSESSOR REFERRED TO CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH, IN HIS VIEW, MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVIDE SUCH AN EXPLANATION .
14 AS REGARDS THE FIRST CIRCUMSTANCE, THE CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT IN 1979, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 6 FEBRUARY 1986 ( CITED ABOVE, PARAGRAPH 27 ) THE COURT STATED THAT THAT ALTERATION COULD NOT RELEASE THE COMMISSION FROM ITS DUTY TO PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION UNDER ARTICLE 5 ( 2 ) OF THE GUIDE TO STAFF REPORTS .
15 AS REGARDS THE SECOND CIRCUMSTANCE, THE CHANGE IN THE APPLICANT' S DUTIES AFTER 20 OCTOBER 1981, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN CASE 266/82 TURNER V COMMISSION (( 1984 )) ECR 1 THE COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT HAD ASSIGNED THE APPLICANT TO A POST WHICH COULD ONLY BE HELD BY A DOCTOR AND WHICH ENTAILED IN A LARGE MEASURE DUTIES PERTAINING TO MEDICAL PRACTICE . THAT BEING SO, HER ORIGINAL DUTIES IN THE MEDICAL SERVICE AND HER NEW DUTIES AT THE OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR SETTLING CLAIMS MUST BE REGARDED AS LARGELY EQUIVALENT . CONSEQUENTLY, THE COMMISSION CANNOT RELY ON THE CHANGE IN HER DUTIES IN ORDER TO ESCAPE IN THIS INSTANCE FROM ITS DUTY TO EXPLAIN ANY CHANGES IN THE ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENTS .
16 IT IS TRUE THAT THE CHANGE IN