1 . ADMISSIBILITY IN SUPPORT OF THE FIRST HEAD OF HIS SUBSIDIARY CONCLUSIONS, THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT THE DUTIES EXERCISED BY HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY HIS DIRECTOR-GENERAL, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER HIS INTEGRATION UNDER THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS, CORRESPOND TO THOSE OF AN ADVISER IN GRADE A3, ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION OF DUTIES AND POWERS DRAWN UP BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY . CONSEQUENTLY, HE CLAIMS THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO BE RECLASSIFIED IN THAT GRADE . THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT THIS REQUEST IS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT IS OUT OF TIME, ON THE GROUND THAT WHILE MADE IN THE FORM OF AN APPLICATION AGAINST THE NOTE OF 17 OCTOBER 1963, IT IS IN REALITY AIMED AT THE DECISION INTEGRATING THE APPLICANT NOTIFIED TO HIM ON 21 SEPTEMBER 1962 AND THE DECISION FIXING HIS POSITION WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION NOTIFIED TO HIM ON 23 JANUARY 1963 . THIS OBJECTION CANNOT BE UPHELD . ONLY BY REFERRING TO THE DEFINITION OF DUTIES AND POWERS DRAWN UP BY HIS INSTITUTION WAS THE APPLICANT ABLE TO BECOME FULLY AWARE OF THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE FUNCTIONS EXERCISED BY HIM AND A GIVEN BASIC POST . THE DEFENDANT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT IN THE NOTE OF 29 JULY 1963 THE APPLICANT MADE NO REQUEST TO BE RECLASSIFIED IN GRADE A3 . HE COULD NOT THEREFORE HAVE ELICITED FROM THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN THIS MATTER ANY DECISION CAPABLE OF FORMING THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . IT IS TRUE THAT IN HIS ABOVE-MENTIONED NOTE THE APPLICANT ONLY REQUESTED AS A SUBSIDIARY POINT, AND IN VERY VAGUE TERMS THAT HIS POST OF ADMINISTRATOR BE CONVERTED INTO A POST OF ADVISER . HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT WELL UNDERSTOOD THE TRUE IMPORT OF THIS PROPOSAL, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN THE NOTE OF 17 OCTOBER 1963 AND FROM THE REASONS GIVEN IN IT FOR THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF CONVERTING THE APPLICANT'S POST AS HE HAD REQUESTED . THIS OBJECTION OF THE DEFENDANT MUST THEREFORE LIKEWISE BE REJECTED .
2 . THE SUBSTANCE THE AIM OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DUTIES PERFORMED AND THE GRADE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF ANNEX I TO THE REGULATIONS AS ALSO OF ARTICLE 5 REFERRING TO THE DEFINITION OF DUTIES AND POWERS DRAWN UP BY EACH INSTITUTION, IS ON THE ONE HAND TO AVOID INEQUALITY OF TREATMENT BETWEEN OFFICIALS TO WHOM DUTIES OF A COMPARABLE NATURE HAVE BEEN VALIDLY ASSIGNED, AND ON THE OTHER HAND TO ENSURE THAT NO OFFICIAL IS REQUIRED TO GIVE SERVICES WHICH DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE DUTIES ATTACHING TO HIS POST . THAT IS WHY, IN THE CASE REFERRED TO BY THE APPLICANT THE COURT ANNULLED THE REFUSAL BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO CLASSIFY AN OFFICIAL IN A GRADE WHICH CORRESPONDED TO THE DUTIES FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF WHICH HE HAD BEEN EXPRESSLY ENGAGED AND WHICH HAD BEEN EXERCISED BY HIM WITHOUT INTERRUPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED AUTHORITY, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER HIS INTEGRATION UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS . ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS PRINCIPLE CANNOT BE APPLIED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO OBLIGE THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO ACCORD ITS OFFICIALS A GRADE OTHER THAN THAT WHICH, ACCORDING TO ANNEX I AND THE DEFINITION REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 5, CORRESPONDS TO THE BASIC POST TO WHICH IT HAS NOT ONLY FORMALLY APPOINTED THEM, BUT ALSO IN FACT INTENDED THEM TO FILL . ANY OTHER CONCLUSIONS WOULD MEAN THAT EVERY TIME A HEAD OF DEPARTMENT TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO GIVE HIS SUBORDINATES DUTIES TO PERFORM WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE SCALE OF POSTS, RELATED TO A POST HIGHER THAN THAT TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE HAD BEEN APPOINTED, A FACTUAL SITUATION MIGHT ARISE WHICH WOULD BE BINDING ON THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WHILE NOT INTENDED BY IT . IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHATEVER THE NATURE OF THE DUTIES THE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ASKED TO PERFORM BY HIS DIRECTOR-GENERAL, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEFENDANT NEVER AUTHORIZED THE APPLICANT TO BE DIRECTLY ATTACHED TO THE LATTER . ON THE CONTRARY, IT SHOWED EVIDENCE OF THE OPPOSITE INTENTION ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS . CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICANT CAN HAVE NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM TO BE RECLASSIFIED IN GRADE A3 . E - THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES THE APPLICANT ASKS THAT WHATEVER THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE THE DEFENDANT BE ORDERED TO PAY NON-MATERIAL DAMAGES OF, PROVISIONALLY, ONE FRANC . HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS IN NO WAY EXPLAINED IN WHAT RESPECT HE HAS SUFFERED NON-MATERIAL DAMAGE . MOREOVER, IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT HE HAD NO RIGHT TO BE RECLASSIFIED IN GRADE A3 . THEREFORE THIS CLAIM MUST BE DISMISSED .