IT WAS BASED .
13 WITH REGARD TO THAT COMPLAINT , IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET IN REGARD TO STATING THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE CONTESTED DECISION IS BASED MUST BE ASSESSED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF A DECISION REFUSING ESTABLISHMENT AT THE EXPIRY OF A PROBATIONARY PERIOD . IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 17 NOVEMBER 1983 ( CASE 290/82 TREFOIS V COURT OF JUSTICE ( 1983 ) ECR 3751 ), THE COURT EMPHASIZED THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DECISION OF THIS TYPE AND DISMISSAL IN THE STRICT SENSE OF A PERSON WHO HAD BEEN APPOINTED AS AN ESTABLISHED OFFICIAL . WHILST IN THE LATTER CASE THE GROUNDS JUSTIFYING THE TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF AN ESTABLISHED OFFICIAL MUST BE EXAMINED IN DETAIL , IN DECISIONS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PROBATIONARY OFFICIALS , IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POSITIVE CONSIDERATIONS SHOWING THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE SERVICE .
14 THAT BEING THE NATURE OF THE CONTESTED MEASURE , THE DECISION OF 23 MARCH 1983 , BY REFERRING BOTH TO THE REPORT AT THE EXPIRY OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD AND THE OPINION OF THE REPORTS COMMITTEE , CONTAINS AN ABUNDANT STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH IT IS BASED , PERMITTING THE APPLICANT TO UNDERSTAND PERFECTLY THE REASONS FOR WHICH THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE REFUSED TO ESTABLISH HIM . REGARD BEING HAD TO THE WIDE DISCRETION WHICH THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS IN SUCH A CASE , THE LATTER WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO JUSTIFY ITSELF TO THE APPLICANT SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE DECISION WAS NOT TO DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF EMPLOYMENT BUT TO DECIDE WHETHER HE HAD DEMONSTRATED THE CAPACITIES NECESSARY FOR THE POST HE WISHED TO OBTAIN . THE LONG ALTERCATIONS BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES AND THE APPLICANT , WHICH MAY BE CLEARLY SEEN FROM THE FILE , SHOW THAT HE WAS PERFECTLY WELL AWARE OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED TO HIS ESTABLISHMENT AND THEREFORE WAS IN A POSITION FULLY TO DEFEND HIS INTERESTS .
15 THAT SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
SUBMISSIONS ALLEGING THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO SERVE HIS PROBATIONARY PERIOD UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS
16 THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO SERVE THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 34 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS . HE EXPLAINS FIRST THAT IN FACT , HIS PROBATIONARY PERIOD DID NOT LAST FOR THE NINE MONTHS REQUIRED BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS . IF HIS LEAVE , THE HOLIDAY PERIODS WHEN WORK WAS SLACK AND THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE DRAFTING OF THE REPORT AND THE END OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD ARE ADDED TOGETHER , MR PATRINOS CONSIDERS THAT HIS EFFECTIVE PROBATIONARY PERIOD LASTED IN REALITY ONLY A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF THE TIME REQUIRED BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS . SECONDLY , THE APPLICANT CONSIDERS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION SHOULD HAVE WARNED HIM TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF HIS PROBATIONARY PERIOD IN ACCORDANCE