TO THE COMPLAINT WAS NOTIFIED TO THE APPLICANT .
18 IN THE SECOND PLACE , IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IT APPEARS FROM THE PAPERS IN THE CASE THAN WHEN , BY HER COMPLAINT OF 5 NOVEMBER 1981 , THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THAT THE DECISION OF 11 AUGUST 1981 APPOINTING HER AS A TYPIST IN GRADE C 4 BE SET ASIDE , SHE CALLED IN QUESTION AT THE SAME TIME THE SELECTION BOARD ' S DECISION IN COMPETITION NO CJ 49/79 RELATING TO THE FAILURE TO ENTER HER NAME ON THE RESERVE LIST OF SECRETARY/SHORTHAND-TYPISTS IN CAREER BRACKET C 3 - C 2 . CONSEQUENTLY HER COMPLAINT DIRECTED AGAINST THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ' S DECISION OF 11 AUGUST 1981 WAS ALSO INTENDED TO SECURE THE ANNULMENT OF THE SELECTION BOARD ' S DECISION . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COMPLAINT ALSO COVERED HER REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT TO GRADE C 3 .
19 AS REGARDS THE ALLEGATION THAT THE ACTION IS OUT OF TIME , IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NEVER FORMALLY INFORMED OF THE ACTUAL RESULT OF HER TEST AND ABOVE ALL THAT SHE WAS INFORMED OF THE PROCESS OF ' ' OFFSETTING ADVANTAGES ' ' ONLY BY THE SELECTION BOARD ' S MEMORANDUM OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1981 . THE ADMINISTRATION IS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO RAISE AN OBJECTION TO A DELAY WHICH IS A RESULT OF ITS OWN CONDUCT .
20 FOR THE SAME REASONS , THE ARGUMENT THAT THE APPLICANT ACQUIESCED IN THE RESULT OF THE TESTS MUST BE REJECTED .
21 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY MUST BE DISMISSED .
SUBSTANCE
22 IN HER APPLICATION , THE APPLICANT PUTS FORWARD THREE PRINCIPAL CLAIMS , FIRST , THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE SELECTION BOARD FOR COMPETITION NO CJ 49/79 , CONCERNING THE FAILURE TO ENTER HER NAME ON THE RESERVE LIST FOR THE RECRUITMENT OF SECRETARY/SHORTHAND-TYPISTS IN CAREER BRACKET C 3 - C 2 ; SECONDLY , HER APPOINTMENT TO A POST IN THAT CAREER BRACKET WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF HER APPOINTMENT AS A SECRETARY/TYPIST IN GRADE C 4 ; THIRDLY THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION REJECTING HER COMPLAINT .
23 IN SUPPORT OF THAT CLAIM , THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE SELECTION BOARD ' S ACTION IN ERRONEOUSLY REGARDING AS A MISTAKE THE OMISSION OF THE TITLE OF THE TEXT DICTATED IN THE SHORTHAND TEST IN LUXEMBOURG CONSTITUTED A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY ; THAT DECISION REPRESENTED A FACTUAL ERROR RATHER THAN A VALUE JUDGMENT . THUS THE BOARD INFRINGED INDENT ( E ) OF THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF ANNEX III TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS BY MARKING THAT TEST MORE SEVERELY BY WAY OF ' OFFSETTING ADVANTAGES ' .
24 SHE CLAIMS MOREOVER THAT INASMUCH AS THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTION FAILED TO INFORM HER UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT SHE HAD NOT BEEN ADMITTED TO THE RESERVE LIST FOR SHORTHAND-TYPISTS , IT WAS GIVING ASSURANCES AND ENGENDERING HOPES WITH REGARD TO HER CAREER WHICH MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION