SHOULD DESCRIBE THE DUTIES ENTRUSTED TO THE APPLICANT SINCE 1967 AND SHOULD DRAW UP THE TWO-YEARLY PERIODIC REPORTS CONCERNING HIM
- AN ORDER THAT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD PAY DAMAGES FOR THE DAMAGE THEREBY SUFFERED OF AN AMOUNT TO BE FIXED BY THE COURT EX AEQUO ET BONO
- THE ANNULMENT OF THE REFUSAL OF THE DEFENDANT TO PERMIT THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE , EXCEPT MARGINALLY OR FOR 10 % , HIS STUDIES , RESEARCH AND COLLABORATION IN THE FIELD OF THERMAL BREEDER REACTORS AND IN PARTICULAR TO ACT AS COORDINATOR AND RAPPORTEUR FOR THE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ESTABLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY .
20 THE REQUESTS FORMULATED IN THE APPLICATION AND THE REPLY AND STATED IN DETAIL DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE MAY BE SUMMARIZED IN THE FORM OF THREE SUBMISSIONS WHICH SHOULD BE EXAMINED IN TURN .
I - THE LEGALITY OF THE TRANSFER DECISION
21 THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT THE TRANSFER DECISION , WHICH WAS TAKEN AGAINST HIS WISHES AND PLACED HIM IN A SERIOUS POSITION FROM THE FAMILY POINT OF VIEW , DID NOT STATE THE REASONS UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND THAT THE COURT COULD NOT EXERCISE ITS POWERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ON A MERE REFERENCE TO THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE .
22 MOREOVER IT WAS TAKEN AFTER EXAMINATION OF AN INCOMPLETE AND INACCURATE PERSONAL FILE .
23 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 25 HAVE OR HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED , IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER NOT ONLY THE TRANSFER DECISION IN ITSELF BUT THE STAFF MEMORANDA ON WHICH IT IS BASED WHICH WERE DULY BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPLICANT AND WHICH CLEARLY INFORMED HIM OF THE REASONS UPON WHICH THAT DECISION WAS BASED
24 IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TRANSFER DECISION WAS PRECEDED BY A MEMORANDUM FROM THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL INFORMING THE APPLICANT AS EARLY AS 1 JUNE 1975 THAT , IN VIEW OF THE PROGRAMMES LAID DOWN BY THE COUNCIL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AT PETTEN , HIS SKILLS COULD NO LONGER BE USED THERE .
25 BY MEMORANDUM FROM THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE OF 11 DECEMBER 1975 ADDRESSED TO THE APPLICANT AT THE SAME TIME AS THE DECISION IN QUESTION , IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE APPLICANT THAT THE WORK IN THE FIELD OF MOLTEN SALT BREEDER REACTORS COULD NO LONGER BE CONTINUED AT THE CENTRE AND THAT IN VIEW OF HIS SPECIAL FIELD IT WAS ONLY POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER TRANSFERRING HIM TO ONE OF THE TWO VACANT POSTS AT ISPRA .
26 THE TRANSFER DECISION IS THEREFORE COMPLETED BY A STATEMENT OF THE REASONS UPON WHICH IT IS BASED OF WHICH THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE AND WHICH CONTAINS ALL THE ESSENTIAL FACTORS WHICH GUIDED THE ADMINISTRATION IN ITS DECISION AND ARE THEREFORE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW .
27 IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE BASIS OF THAT STATEMENT OF THE