INFORMED HER , BY LETTERS OF 9 JANUARY AND 11 FEBRUARY 1985 , THAT SHE COULD NOT BE ADMITTED TO THE TESTS BECAUSE SHE DID NOT POSSESS THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED IN THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION . THE APPLICANT CONSIDERED THAT THAT DECISION WAS VITIATED BY THE LACK OF AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF GROUNDS AND THAT IT INFRINGED THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 5 OF ANNEX III TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS AND THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT AND NON-DISCRIMINATION AS BETWEEN OFFICIALS . SHE THEREFORE BROUGHT THE MAIN ACTION AND LODGED THIS APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES .
5 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE APPLICANT MUST STATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE INTERIM MEASURES APPLIED FOR .
6 IN THAT REGARD THE APPLICANT REFERS TO THE SUBMISSIONS SET OUT IN THE MAIN APPLICATION AND EMPHASIZES IN ADDITION THAT THERE IS URGENCY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) INASMUCH AS THE SELECTION BOARD PROPOSES TO ORGANIZE IN MAY OR JUNE 1985 A TEST CONSISTING OF A PAPER DESIGNED TO TEST CANDIDATES ' GENERAL KNOWLEDGE AND JUDGMENT . TO PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM TAKING PART IN THAT TEST WOULD IN FACT AMOUNT TO PREVENTING HER FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE SUBSEQUENT TRAINING PROGRAMME PROVIDED FOR IN THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION , A PROGRAMME WHICH COULD NOT BE ORGANIZED FOR ONE PERSON .
7 IN ITS WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS THE COMMISSION CONTENDS THAT THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES SHOULD BE DISMISSED . IT STRESSES THAT A MEASURE WHICH WOULD MAKE THE MAIN ACTION DEVOID OF PURPOSE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS PROVISIONAL . IN ADDITION , THERE ARE NO CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY SINCE THERE IS NO RISK OF IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE APPLICANT . IF THE COURT UPHELD THE MAIN ACTION AND ANNULLED THE SELECTION BOARD ' S DECISION , THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT JUDGMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE ADMINISTRATION TO TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO PLACE THE CANDIDATE IN THE SITUATION IN WHICH SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN IF HER APPLICATION HAD NOT BEEN REJECTED . CONSEQUENTLY , THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO RESUME ITS WORK AND IT IS INCORRECT TO CLAIM , AS THE APPLICANT DOES , THAT THE TRAINING PROGRAMME IN QUESTION COULD NOT BE ORGANIZED FOR ONE PERSON .
8 IN CONSIDERING THE PROBLEM RAISED BY THIS APPLICATION , IT MUST BE RECALLED THAT THE MAIN ACTION SEEKS THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE SELECTION BOARD NOT TO ADMIT THE APPLICANT TO THE COMPETITION . ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 185 OF THE TREATY , THAT ACTION DOES NOT HAVE SUSPENSORY EFFECT . THE COURT MAY , HOWEVER , IF IT CONSIDERS THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES SO REQUIRE , ORDER THAT THE OPERATION OF THE CONTESTED ACT BE SUSPENDED .
9 IN THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES , THE APPLICANT IS NOT SEEKING THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF THE CONTESTED MEASURE BUT IS IN FACT ASKING THE COURT