OF THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD SHOWS THE LATTER TO HAVE FORMED AN INDEPENDENT OPINION .
THE PRESENT COMPLAINT IS THEREFORE UNFOUNDED .
( G ) THE APPLICANT CRITICIZES THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD FOR HAVING FAILED TO ALLOW HIM A CONFRONTATION WITH MR RECHT .
IN INTEGRATION CASES THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD IS OBLIGED TO ARRANGE FOR A CONFRONTATION BETWEEN A SUBORDINATE AND HIS SUPERIOR ONLY IF THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A MEETING WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE BOARD TO CLARIFY ESSENTIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES CONCERNED TO AN EXTENT SUFFICIENT IN LAW .
THERE IS NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT THIS WAS THE POSITION IN THE PRESENT CASE .
THE PRESENT COMPLAINT IS THEREFORE UNFOUNDED .
P.662
( H ) THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT AS HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE OPINION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD BEFORE BEING INFORMED OF THE DECISION TO DISMISS HIM HE WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF INVOKING THE ILLEGALITY OF THAT OPINION AT A TIME WHEN THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT YET MADE UP ITS MIND .
THERE IS NO PROVISION REQUIRING THE IMMEDIATE COMMUNICATION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED OF THE OPINION WHICH WAS ADDRESSED SOLELY TO THE INSTITUTION .
THE INTERESTS OF THE CANDIDATE ARE SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTED IN LAW BY HIS RIGHT TO LODGE A COMPLAINT AND, IF NECESSARY, TO APPEAL TO THE COURT AGAINST THE DECISION REFUSING HIM INTEGRATION AND DISMISSING HIM .
MOREOVER, THE COMPLAINT IS FACTUALLY INACCURATE, SINCE THE DEFENDANT INFORMED THE APPLICANT ORALLY OF THE OPINION IN QUESTION, WHICH EFFECTIVELY ENABLED HIM TO LODGE A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OPINION .
THE PRESENT COMPLAINT IS THEREFORE UNFOUNDED .
( I ) THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS THAT, BY CONCEALING FROM HIM THE FACT THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD HAD RECOMMENDED HIS INTEGRATION IN THE GRADE IMMEDIATELY BELOW, THE DEFENDANT RENDERED IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DEFEND HIMSELF PROPERLY .
HE ARGUES THAT THIS OMISSION CONSTITUTES IN ADDITION A FAILURE TO GIVE SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR THE DECISION, BECAUSE ' IN ORDER TO REFUSE THE INTEGRATION OF THE APPLICANT THE DEFENDANT RELIED ON AN OPINION WHICH GRANTED IT '.
ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 102 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD WAS ONLY REQUIRED TO GIVE ITS OPINION ON THE SUITABILITY OF THE CANDIDATE FOR THE DUTIES WHICH HE IN FACT CARRIED OUT .
IN THE PRESENT CASE IT ISSUED AN UNFAVOURABLE ASSESSMENT ON THAT POINT, WHICH OBLIGED THE DEFENDANT TO TERMINATE THE APPLICANT'S CONTRACT .
ALTHOUGH IT ALSO PUT FORWARD THE ABOVEMENTIONED PROPOSAL, THIS CONSTITUTED NO MORE THAN A SUGGESTION WITHOUT ANY BINDING LEGAL CONSEQUENCES .
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DEFENDANT WAS NEITHER OBLIGED TO COMMUNICATE THE SUGGESTION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED NOR TO INFORM HIM WHY IT HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPTED .
THE PRESENT COMPLAINT IS THEREFORE UNFOUNDED .
P.663
( K ) THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE UNFAVOURABLE ASSESSMENT MADE BY MR RECHT AND ENDORSED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD WAS IN FACT INFLUENCED BY THE PERSONAL ANIMOSITY WHICH MR RECHT HAD FELT FOR HIM SINCE THE OCCURRENCE OF CERTAIN SPECIFIC EVENTS .
IN