1 THE APPLICANT IS FOR THE ANNULMENT : ( 1 ) OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 18 JUNE 1969 IN SO FAR AS IT ALLOCATES THE APPLICANT TO A POST AS PRINCIPAL ADVISER IN GRADE A 2 IN THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR TRANSPORT; ( 2 ) OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 15 JANUARY 1969 APPOINTING MR JACQUES DOUSSET DIRECTOR IN THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR TRANSPORT; ( 3 ) THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION TO REFUSE THE APPLICANT A CAR ALLOWANCE FOR THE PERIOD 1 OCTOBER 1968 TO 30 JULY 1969 .
2 THE FIRST COMPLAINTS TO BE EXAMINED ARE THOSE DIRECTED AGAINST THE APPOINTMENT OF MR DOUSSET .
3 IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 6 MAY 1969 THE COURT OF JUSTICE ANNULLED, INTER ALIA, THE DECISION OF THE DEFENDANT OF 26 JUNE 1968 WHEREBY, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 4 OF REGULATION NO 259/68, THE APPLICANT' S EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED .
4 THIS WAS THE DECISION, LATER ANNULLED, WHICH PREVENTED THE APPLICANT FROM APPLYING FOR A POST AS DIRECTOR IN THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR TRANSPORT .
5 WHILST THE STAFF REGULATIONS DO NOT GIVE OFFICIALS A RIGHT TO ANY PARTICULAR POST, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT AN OFFICIAL MAY NOT HAVE A LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN PREFERRING ONE POST TO ANOTHER .
6 THIS, IN PARTICULAR, IS WHY THE STAFF REGULATIONS MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR AN OFFICIAL TO BE TRANSFERRED ON HIS REQUEST; MOREOVER SUCH PREFERENCE BETWEEN POSTS, EVEN THOSE IN THE SAME GRADE, MAY BE IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE .
7 THE RESULT OF THE DECISION ANNULLED BY THE JUDGMENT OF 6 MAY 1969 WAS THAT THE DEFENDANT, WHEN IT APPOINTED MR DOUSSET ON 15 JANUARY 1969, MADE ITS CHOICE WITHOUT HAVING AT ITS DISPOSAL A FACTOR OF ASSESSMENT WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE ABLE TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION FULLY .
8 THE APPLICATION IS ACCORDINGLY WELL FOUNDED ON THIS POINT .
9 ON THE OTHER HAND THE DECISION OF 18 JUNE 1969 APPOINTING THE APPLICANT TO A POST AS PRINCIPAL ADVISER DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT HIM .
10 IN FACT THE POSTS OF DIRECTOR AND OF PRINCIPAL ADVISER FALL WITHIN THE SAME GRADE AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEIR RESPECTIVE POWERS AND DUTIES, WHILST IT MAY JUSTIFY A PERSONAL PREFERENCE FOR ONE OR THE OTHER POST, YET DOES NOT INFRINGE THE RULE OF EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN GRADE AND POST ON WHICH OFFICIALS ARE ENTITLED TO RELY .
11 FURTHERMORE THIS DECISION IS NOT SUCH AS TO HINDER THE COMMISSION IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETIONARY POWER WHEN, FOLLOWING THE PRESENT JUDGMENT, IT COMES TO FILL THE VACANT POST OF DIRECTOR IN THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR TRANSPORT .
12 THE APPLICATION ON THIS POINT IS INADMISSIBLE .
13 THE APPLICANT FURTHER ASKS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE REFUSAL BY THE DEFENDANT TO GRANT HIM THE CAR ALLOWANCE ALLOWED FOR BY ARTICLE 15 OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO HIS REINSTATEMENT IN GRADE A 2 .
14 THE CAR ALLOWANCE, WHILST IT IS A FIXED AMOUNT, IS JUSTIFIED ONLY IF THE VEHICLE CAN BE USED IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE .
15 HOWEVER, DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN RELIEVED OF HIS DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN THE SERVICE .
16 ACCORDINGLY, THE APPLICATION IS UNFOUNDED ON THIS POINT .