1 THIS APPLICATION SEEKS THE ANNULMENT OF THE PERIODIC REPORT MADE ON THE APPLICANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 43 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1 JULY 1967 TO 30 JUNE 1969 .
2 UNLIKE PREVIOUS REPORTS, WHICH WERE FAVOURABLE, THE REPORT MADE IN 1969 CONTAINS UNFAVOURABLE ASSESSMENTS, IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARD TO THE ABILITY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE APPLICANT .
3 THE COMMISSION EXPLAINS THIS CHANGE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPLICANT BY REFERENCE TO THE RAPID TECHNICAL PROGRESS MADE IN THE COMPUTER FIELD, WHICH OVERTOOK THE KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES OF THE APPLICANT .
4 FOR HIS PART, THE APPLICANT HAS OFFERED TO PROVE BY INVESTIGATION, EXPERT REPORT OR COMPETITION HIS ABILITY TO CARRY OUT ALL THE WORK ON THE MOST MODERN COMPUTER EQUIPMENT IN OPERATION IN HIS BRANCH AND, MORE GENERALLY, HIS CAPACITY FOR WORK AND ORGANIZATION .
5 HE SUBMITTED, IN ADDITION, TESTIMONIALS CONTAINING ASSESSMENTS CONTRASTING WITH THOSE OF THE PERIODIC REPORT .
6 EVEN THOUGH THE UNFAVOURABLE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPLICANT IN THE REPORT AT ISSUE MAY APPEAR SURPRISING WHEN COMPARED WITH PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS, IT APPEARS TO BE BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND ON THE JUDGMENTS WHICH IT MADE WITH REGARD TO THE OCCUPATIONAL ABILITY OF THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED .
7 THE COURT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT BY THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE OCCUPATIONAL ABILITY OF AN OFFICIAL IS WELL-FOUNDED WHEN THIS ASSESSMENT INVOLVES COMPLEX VALUE-JUDGMENTS WHICH, BY THEIR VERY NATURE, ARE NOT CAPABLE OF OBJECTIVE PROOF .
8 FURTHERMORE, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PROVE EITHER IRREGULARITY IN THE REPORT PROCEDURE OR AN OBVIOUS ERROR OF FACT, OR ANY BREACH OF THE OTHER LEGAL SAFEGUARDS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
9 THE OFFER OF PROOF WITH A VIEW TO CORRECTING THE ASSESSMENTS IS INADMISSIBLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES .
10 THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .