. DECLARE THE HEARING OF THE APPLICANT ON 29 JANUARY 1975 BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL TO BE OF NO EFFECT OWING TO A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE ;
5 . AS A RESULT DECLARE THE DECISION OF 24 FEBRUARY 1975 ( NO 146/75 ) REMOVING THE APPLICANT FROM HER POST TO BE VOID AND OF NO EFFECT AND RULE THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RE-ESTABLISHED AS FROM 1 MARCH 1975 WITH ALL HER RIGHTS AS AN OFFICIAL IN GRADE C 3 OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCIL . '
11 THE COUNCIL OBJECTS THAT THE CLAIMS OTHER THAN THE CLAIM FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION REMOVING HER FROM HER POST ARE INADMISSIBLE .
12 HOWEVER , IN HER REPLY , THE APPLICANT LIMITS HER CLAIMS TO THIS ONE ONLY , STATING THAT THE OTHERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS MERE GROUNDS .
13 THEREFORE THE OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY HAS CEASED TO BE RELEVANT .
SUBSTANCE
14 THE APPLICANT CLAIMS FIRST OF ALL THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OUGHT , IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 59 ( 3 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , TO HAVE REFERRED THE CASE TO THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE BEFORE SETTING UP THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD .
15 SHE STATES THAT , HAVING REGARD TO THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES PRODUCED BY HER , THE ADMINISTRATION WAS NOT WITHIN ITS RIGHTS IN REQUIRING HER TO COMPLY WITH HER ASSIGNMENT TO THE TYPING POOL .
16 ON THE OTHER HAND , THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OPINIONS OF THE ADMINIS- TRATION ' S MEDICAL ADVISER AND OF THE SPECIALIST WHOM IT CONSULTED AND THOSE DELIVERED IN THE CERTIFICATES PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE CAUSED THE ADMINISTRATION TO REFER TO THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 59 ( 3 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
17 ARTICLE 59 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS DEALS , ON THE ONE HAND , WITH SICK LEAVE FOR AN OFFICIAL PREVENTED FROM PERFORMING HIS DUTIES BECAUSE OF SICKNESS OR ACCIDENT AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , WITH AUTOMATIC LEAVE ON THE DECISION OF THE INSTITUTION .
18 THEREFORE , AS THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE PROVIDES THAT CASES OF DISPUTE SHALL BE REFERRED TO THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE , IT CAN ONLY REFER TO CASES OF SICK LEAVE , WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT REFERS ONLY TO THE CASE LAID DOWN IN PARAGRAPH ( 2 ) OF THE ARTICLE OR ALSO TO THAT REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH ( 1 ).
19 IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PRESENT CASE TO STATE THAT IT DOES NOT CONCERN SICK LEAVE OF THE APPLICANT BUT THE SITUATION CREATED BY THE OBJECTIONS SHE RAISED , BECAUSE OF HER STATE OF HEALTH , TO HER ASSIGNMENT TO THE TYPING POOL .
20 IN ANY CASE ARTICLE 59 , AND ESPECIALLY PARAGRAPH ( 3 ) THEREOF , DOES NOT REFER TO SUCH A SITUATION AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE INVOKED IN THE PRESENT CASE .
21 THE APPLICANT ALSO CRITICIZES THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD ,