MADE OF HER , WAS NOT INFORMED OF HER DISMISSAL ON 15 JANUARY 1975 , THE EXACT DATE OF THE END OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD , CANNOT TRANSFORM HER EMPLOYMENT FOR A FIXED PERIOD INTO EMPLOYMENT FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD .
14 THE SECOND SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
15 THE APPLICANT FURTHER ALLEGES THAT THE DECISION TAKEN IN RESPECT OF HER CAUSED HER SERIOUS NON-MATERIAL DAMAGE SINCE DISMISSAL AT THE EXPIRY OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF A PERSON WHO TOOK PART IN AN EXTERNAL COMPETITION IS EXTREMELY RARE .
16 HOWEVER , THE DISMISSAL PROCEDURE IS SET OUT IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND THEREFORE SINCE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS WERE COMPLIED WITH IT CANNOT ENTAIL ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO THE DISMISSED PROBATIONER OFFICIAL .
17 SINCE THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE DECISION AT ISSUE WAS NOT VITIATED BY ANY DEFECT OF FORM , THIS SUBMISSION MUST BE REJECTED .
18 FINALLY THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THE UNILATERAL BREACH OF HER CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT CAUSED HER DAMAGE EQUAL TO 10 MONTHS ' SALARY .
19 SINCE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE APPLICANT WAS TERMINATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , THIS FINAL SUBMISSION MUST ALSO BE REJECTED .
Decision on costs
COSTS
20 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
21 THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HER SUBMISSIONS .
22 NEVERTHELESS UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , IN PROCEEDINGS BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES , THE INSTITUTIONS ARE TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;
2 . ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .