STATED THAT "FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZATION TO WORK HALF-TIME CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ASSURED ".
5 ON 8 OCTOBER 1987 THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR HER AUTHORIZATION TO WORK HALF-TIME TO BE EXTENDED TO COVER THE PERIOD 1 JANUARY TO 31 DECEMBER 1988 . BY DECISION OF 13 NOVEMBER 1987, THE PERSONNEL DIVISION REFUSED HER APPLICATION, OBSERVING THAT ARTICLE 55A OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS PROVIDED THAT THE HALF-TIME WORK MUST BE FULLY IN THE INTERESTS OF THE INSTITUTION AND THAT AS HER IMMEDIATE SUPERIORS
"CONSIDER THAT TO EXTEND THE AUTHORIZATION WOULD BE LIKELY TO DISTURB THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SERVICE, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE IT CONTAIN NO DATA ON THE BASIS OF WHICH AN EXTENSION MIGHT BE GRANTED ".
6 ON 28 JANUARY 1988 THE APPLICANT LODGED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THAT DECISION UNDER ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ON THE GROUNDS THAT HER WISH TO WORK HALF-TIME WAS BASED ON THE DESIRE TO SAFEGUARD HER CHILDREN' S FUTURE, THAT AUTHORIZATION TO WORK HALF-TIME WOULD NOT DISTURB THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SERVICE AND THAT INSUFFICIENT REASONS HAD BEEN GIVEN FOR THE REJECTION OF HER APPLICATION .
7 ON 9 MARCH 1988 THE APPLICANT BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST THE PERSONNEL DIVISION' S DECISION OF 13 NOVEMBER 1987 .
8 BY AN APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON THE SAME DATE THE APPLICANT CLAIMED THAT THE COURT SHOULD :
"( A ) DECLARE THAT THE REJECTION OF ( HER ) APPLICATION MUST BE SUSPENDED TEMPORARILY;
( B ) ORDER THAT THE PREVIOUS AUTHORIZATION TO WORK HALF-TIME SHOULD CONTINUE TO GOVERN RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE COURT HAS RULED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE;
( C ) RESERVE THE COSTS ".
9 THE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS ON 21 MARCH 1988 . SINCE THE PARTIES' WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS CONTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO RULE ON THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES, IT DID NOT APPEAR NECESSARY TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT FROM THE PARTIES .
10 IN SUPPORT OF HER APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES THE APPLICANT REFERS TO HER SOCIAL AND FAMILY SITUATION AND OBSERVES THAT ANY DELAY IN MAKING A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WOULD BE LIABLE TO HAVE IRREPARABLE CONSEQUENCES BOTH FOR HERSELF AND FOR HER TWO CHILDREN .
11 THE DEFENDANT CLAIMS THAT THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES ON THE GROUNDS THAT THERE ARE NO CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES ARE NOT SATISFIED .
12 AS FAR AS URGENCY IS CONCERNED, THE DEFENDANT OBSERVES THAT THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT WAITED ALMOST TWO-AND-A-HALF MONTHS BEFORE BRINGING HER APPLICATION SHOWS THAT NO URGENCY CAN BE INVOLVED .
13 AS REGARDS THE REQUIREMENT THAT THERE MUST BE GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF THE CONTESTED DECISION, THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 55A AND ANNEX IVA TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS