1-3 THE APPLICATION IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE PERIODIC REPORT OF 15 JANUARY 1968 . THE DEFENDANT HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY BY SUBMITTING THAT THIS REPORT HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED ON 22 MAY 1968 BY AN AMENDED REPORT AND THAT THEREFORE THE APPLICATION LODGED ON 25 JULY 1968 FROM THE VERY BEGINNING HAD NO PURPOSE .
4-7 THE APPLICANT REPLIES THAT THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION CANNOT BE USED OR CITED AGAINST HIM, BECAUSE ARTICLE 26 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT THE INSTITUTIONS CANNOT USE OR CITE AGAINST AN OFFICIAL ANY DOCUMENTS IN HIS PERSONAL FILE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN COMMUNICATED TO HIM . ON THIS POINT HE REFERS TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE SAID ARTICLE WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE COMMUNICATION OF ANY DOCUMENT TO AN OFFICIAL SHALL BE EVIDENCED BY HIS SIGNING IT, OR FAILING THAT, SHALL BE EFFECTED BY REGISTERED LETTER . IN HIS VIEW IT FOLLOWS FROM THE DEFENDANT'S OWN STATEMENTS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS LATTER PARAGRAPH HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH IN THIS CASE AND THE OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED .
8-11 IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT A PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE AMENDED PERIODIC REPORT WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT ON 22 MAY 1968 AND THE FINAL VERSION ON 31 MAY . ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT ON THESE TWO OCCASIONS THE APPLICANT REFUSED TO SIGN THE SAID REPORT IT NEVERTHELESS EMERGES FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HE TOOK NOTE OF IT . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 26 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS THAT ALL DOCUMENTS IN HIS
PERSONAL FILE MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH . AS COMMUNICATION OF THE REPORT HAS IN FACT BEEN ESTABLISHED IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 26 HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH, AS ITS ONLY PURPOSE IS TO CONFIRM BEYOND DOUBT THE COMMUNICATION REQUIRED BY THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH OF THE SAID ARTICLE .
12-13 THE PERIODIC REPORT OF 22 MAY 1968 MAY THEREFORE BE USED AND CITED AGAINST THE APPLICANT AND ACCEPTED AS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE EARLIER PERIODIC REPORT OF 15 JANUARY HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN . CONSEQUENTLY AT THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION THE CONTESTED PERIODIC REPORT NO LONGER EXISTED AND THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE BE DECLARED INADMISSIBLE SINCE IT HAS NO PURPOSE .
14 THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HIS APPLICATION .
15-16 UNDER ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . HOWEVER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 70 OF THE SAID RULES, IN APPLICATIONS BROUGHT BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES, INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES APPLICATION 15/68 AS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
