1 THE APPLICATION SEEKS THE ANNULMENT OF THE COMMUNICATION OF 21 MAY 1970 BY WHICH THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION REJECTED CERTAIN REQUESTS MADE BY THE APPLICANT IN RELATION TO HIS POSITION IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIS CAREER .
2 FURTHERMORE, THE COURT IS ASKED TO FIND PROVED THE EXCEPTIONAL DAMAGE WHICH THE APPLICANT CLAIMS HE HAS SUFFERED BY REASON OF THE COMMISSION' S ATTITUDE TOWARDS HIM AND TO DRAW THE CONSEQUENCES FROM THIS FINDING BY AWARDING HIM EITHER A " CAREER COMPENSATION " OR APPROPRIATE FINANCIAL DAMAGES .
3 THE COMMISSION, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 91 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, HAS ASKED THE COURT TO RULE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION WITHOUT GOING INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE .
4 THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DIFFERENT HEADS OF CLAIM MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT PRECEDED THE COMMUNICATION OF 21 MAY 1970, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPLICATION .
5 IT APPEARS FROM THE FILE THAT THE APPLICANT REPEATEDLY SUBMITTED HIS APPLICATION FOR VACANT POSTS WHICH WOULD HAVE ENTAILED HIS PROMOTION TO GRADE A3 BUT THAT HIS APPLICATIONS WERE NOT GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION .
6 MOREOVER, HE REPEATEDLY ADDRESSED REQUESTS TO THE COMMISSION RELATING TO THE CREATION OF AN INDEPENDENT DEPARTMENT IN HIS FIELD THE MANAGEMENT OF WHICH HE COULD HAVE ASSUMED UNDER CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE ENSURED HIS PROMOTION .
7 THE COMMISSION NEVERTHELESS DID NOT ACCEPT ANY OF THE PROPOSALS WHICH THE APPLICANT MADE ON THIS SUBJECT .
8 FACED WITH THE COMMISSION' S ATTITUDE TOWARDS HIM, THE APPLICANT, BY LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY 1970, ASKED FOR THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION " FOR EXCEPTIONAL DAMAGE ARISING FROM THE IRREGULAR DEVELOPMENT OF CAREER " AND SECONDARILY FOR " THE TERMINATION IN A REASONABLE MANNER OF THE PRESENTLY CONTINUING DAMAGE BY WAY OF CAREER COMPENSATION " .
9 IN HIS REPLY OF 21 MAY 1970 THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION REMINDED THE APPLICANT OF THE FACT THAT IT IS FOR THE COMMISSION, AND FOR THE COMMISSION ALONE, TO DECIDE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF ITS DEPARTMENTS, THAT THE APPLICATIONS MADE BY HIM FOR SEVERAL POSTS OF HEAD OF DIVISION HAD BEEN EXAMINED UNDER THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS, THAT NO IRREGULARITY HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE PROCEDURES WHICH RESULTED IN THE APPOINTMENT OF OTHER APPLICANTS, AND FINALLY THAT PROMOTION TO GRADE A3 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A RIGHT AND THAT THE COMMISSION COULD NOT THEREFORE ACCEPT AS WELL FOUNDED THE REQUESTS FORMULATED IN THE LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY 1970 .
10 ON THE ONE HAND THE PERIOD FOR BRINGING AN ACTION RELATING TO THE IMPLIED DECISION OF REJECTION, RESULTING FROM THE COMMISSION' S SILENCE ON THE APPLICANT' S LAST REQUEST DATED 16 FEBRUARY 1970 HAD EXPIRED BEFORE THE APPLICATION WAS MADE .
11 ON THE OTHER HAND BY ITS LETTER OF 21 MAY 1970 THE COMMISSION DID NO MORE THAN CONFIRM THE POSITION WHICH IT HAD PREVIOUSLY TAKEN ON THE APPLICATIONS WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD MADE ON THE PROPOSALS WHICH HE HAD MADE IN RELATION TO THE RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENTS AND THE CREATION OF AN INDEPENDENT DEPARTMENT UNDER HIS AUTHORITY .
12 THIS COMMUNICATION DID NOT THEREFORE HAVE THE EFFECT OF CAUSING TIME TO RUN AFRESH IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN APPEAL TO THE COURT .
13 THE SECONDARY CONCLUSIONS FORMULATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING " CAREER COMPENSATION " OR A FINDING OF " EXCEPTIONAL DAMAGE " ARE ONLY DESIGNED TO OBTAIN FOR THE APPLICANT THE CAREER BENEFITS WHICH HAVE HITHERTO BEEN REFUSED TO HIM, OR THEIR EQUIVALENT IN THE FORM OF DAMAGES .
14 THESE HEADS OF THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE MEET THE SAME FATE AS THE PRINCIPAL CLAIM .
15 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE IN ITS ENTIRETY .