1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 28 OCTOBER 1980 , MISS WALTRAUT KRUSE , A SECRETARY/SHORTHAND-TYPIST AT THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES IN GRADE C 2 , REQUESTED THE COURT TO ORDER THE COMMISSION TO GUARANTEE HER RIGHT TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF A TRANSLATOR , TOGETHER WITH HER ASSIGNMENT EXCLUSIVELY TO WORK OF THAT NATURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 24 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS . IN HER REPLY , THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THE COURT TO DECLARE THAT BY ASSIGNING HER TO SECRETARIAL DUTIES , THE COMMISSION HAD FAILED TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATION UNDER THE SAID ARTICLE TO FACILITATE HER FURTHER TRAINING AND INSTRUCTION AND , IN THE RESULT , TO PAY TO HER BY WAY OF DAMAGES ONE FRANC FOR THE DAMAGE SUFFERED UNDER THAT HEAD .
2 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE THAT THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE THROUGHOUT HER CAREER AS SECRETARY/SHORTHAND-TYPIST TO FOLLOW A NUMBER OF LANGUAGE COURSES AND THAT AS FROM MARCH 1973 SHE WAS MAINLY , IF NOT EXCLUSIVELY , ASSIGNED TO DUTIES OF TRANSLATING AND DRAFTING DOCUMENTS IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES . HOWEVER , IN JUNE 1979 SHE WAS ASKED ALSO TO UNDERTAKE SECRETARIAL DUTIES AND SHE THEN STATED THAT , FOR HEALTH REASONS , SHE WAS UNABLE TO UNDERTAKE ANY OTHER TYPE OF WORK THAN TRANSLATION . SINCE THAT DATE SHE HAS BEEN ABSENT FROM WORK OWING TO SICKNESS AND HER CASE HAS NOW BEEN REFERRED TO THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE .
3 ON 3 DECEMBER 1979 THE APPLICANT HAD A DISCUSSION WITH HER IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR WHO INFORMED HER THAT WHEN SHE RESUMED HER DUTIES , HE INTENDED TO ASSIGN HER TO THE LIBRARY OF THE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL WHERE SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERTAKE URGENT TRANSLATION DUTIES , ALBEIT FOR ONLY ONE HALF OF HER TIME . THE APPLICANT PROTESTED AT THIS RESTRICTION AND , FOLLOWING AN EXCHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE , SHE LODGED ON 18 APRIL 1980 A COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS WHICH WAS REJECTED ON 28 JULY 1980 .
4 THE COMMISSION CHALLENGES THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION BY STATING , ON THE ONE HAND , THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS OUT OF TIME AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , THAT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE A SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN THE PROCEEDINGS NOW THAT HER CASE HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE .
5 IN THE EVENT , IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE UPON THOSE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS SINCE , EVEN UPON A CURSORY EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICANT ' S ARGUMENTS , IT MAY BE ADJUDGED THAT THE APPLICATION IS IN ALL RESPECTS MANIFESTLY UNFOUNDED .
6 IN THAT CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED , IN THE FIRST PLACE , THAT UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY , ACTING SOLELY IN THE INTEREST OF THE SERVICE , HAS TO ASSIGN EACH OFFICIAL TO A POST IN HIS CATEGORY OR SERVICE WHICH CORRESPONDS TO HIS GRADE AND SECONDLY THAT IT FOLLOWS FROM ARTICLE 36 OF THOSE REGULATIONS THAT AN OFFICIAL IN ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT IS OBLIGED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES PERTAINING TO THE POST TO WHICH HE HAS BEEN APPOINTED .
7 WHILST IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS EVERY INTEREST IN ASSIGNING ITS OFFICIALS TO POSTS WHICH ACCORD WITH THEIR PARTICULAR APTITUDES AND THEIR PERSONAL PREFERENCES , AN OFFICIAL CANNOT FOR ALL THAT BE RECOGNIZED AS HAVING A RIGHT TO PERFORM OR TO RETAIN SPECIFIC DUTIES , OR TO REFUSE ANY OTHER DUTIES PERTAINING TO HIS BASIC POST . THE ONLY RIGHT GUARANTEED TO OFFICIALS BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS TO HAVE DUTIES ASSIGNED TO THEM WHICH CORRESPOND TO THEIR GRADE AND BASIC POST .
8 SUCH CONSIDERATIONS APPLY A FORTIORI WHERE THE DUTIES WHICH THE OFFICIAL CLAIMS SHE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RETAIN FALL , AT LEAST PARTLY , WITHIN ANOTHER CATEGORY THAN HER OWN , AS IS THE CASE HERE .
9 NEITHER MAY THE APPLICANT RELY , IN ORDER TO RETAIN HER PREVIOUS DUTIES , UPON ARTICLE 24 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WHICH IMPOSES AN OBLIGATION UPON THE INSTITUTIONS TO FACILITATE THE FURTHER TRAINING AND INSTRUCTION OF THE OFFICIAL TO A DEGREE WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EFFICIENT FUNCTIONING OF THE DEPARTMENTS . THAT PROVISION DOES NOT CONCERN THE ASSIGNMENT OF OFFICIALS . MOREOVER , IN THE PRESENT CASE THE COMMISSION FULLY SATISFIED ITS OBLIGATIONS TOWARDS THE APPLICANT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 24 BY GIVING HER THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND LANGUAGE COURSES AND MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR HER , EVEN IN THE FUTURE , TO DEVOTE A PART OF HER TIME TO CERTAIN TRANSLATION WORK .
10 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT , BY ASKING THE APPLICANT ALSO TO UNDERTAKE SECRETARIAL DUTIES PERTAINING IN ALL RESPECTS TO HER BASIC POST , THE COMMISSION HAS IN NO WAY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STAFF REGULATIONS NOR HAS IT COMMITTED ANY ACT OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO RENDER ITSELF LIABLE TO THE APPLICANT . THEREFORE , THE APPLICANT ' S CLAIMS MUST BE DISMISSED IN THEIR ENTIRETY INCLUDING THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES .
COSTS
11 UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . HOWEVER , UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 70 OF THOSE RULES , IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY OFFICIALS OF THE COMMUNITIES , THE INSTITUTIONS ARE TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
12 ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT IN FACT HAS FAILED IN HER SUBMISSIONS , IN SETTLING THE QUESTION OF COSTS , THE HISTORY OF THE DISPUTE MUST BE BORNE IN MIND . BY ASSIGNING THE APPLICANT OVER A VERY LONG PERIOD , EXCLUSIVELY OR MAINLY , TO DRAFTING AND TRANSLATING DUTIES WHICH AT LEAST PARTLY FALL WITHIN A CATEGORY OTHER THAN HER OWN , THE ADMINISTRATION HAS ITSELF BROUGHT ABOUT AN ABNORMAL SITUATION AND HAS AROUSED IN THE APPLICANT EXPECTATIONS WHICH ARE UNDERSTANDABLE BUT UNJUSTIFIED . THUS , THE ATTITUDE OF MIND WHICH LED THE APPLICANT TO BRING THIS APPLICATION IS DUE IN PART TO THE ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS MADE PREVIOUSLY BY THE ADMINISTRATION . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES , IT IS APPROPRIATE TO APPLY THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PURSUANT TO WHICH THE COURT MAY ORDER EVEN A SUCCESSFUL PARTY TO PAY COSTS WHICH THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT PARTY BY ITS CONDUCT TO HAVE CAUSED THE OPPOSITE PARTY TO INCUR .
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;
2.ORDERS THE COMMISSION TO BEAR THE COSTS , INCLUDING THOSE OF THE APPLICANT .
