15 IN ITS INTERIM JUDGMENT OF 18 DECEMBER 1980 , THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER ) TOOK THE VIEW THAT IN CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THOSE OF THE PRESENT CASE , THE IRREGULARITY IN THE PROMOTION PROCEDURE IN THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN THAT JUDGMENT , NAMELY THE IMPROPER INCLUSION IN THE FILE OF HIS PERIODIC REPORT FOR 1973 TO 1975 AND THE FACT THAT HIS REPORT FOR 1975 TO 1977 WAS NOT FINAL , WAS INSUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE THE PROMOTIONS MADE UNLESS IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE IRREGULARITY IN QUESTION MIGHT HAVE HAD A DECISIVE INFLUENCE ON THE PROMOTION PROCEDURE .
16 THE DOCUMENTS SUBSEQUENTLY PRODUCED BY THE COMMISSION PERMIT THE FINDING TO BE MADE THAT , EVEN IF THE APPLICANT ' S PERIODIC REPORT FOR 1973 TO 1975 HAD BEEN AMENDED IN THE SAME MANNER AS HIS REPORT FOR 1975 TO 1977 , AND EVEN IF THE LATTER REPORT HAD BEEN FINAL WHEN THE PROMOTION PROCEDURE COMPLAINED OF WAS IN PROGRESS , THE ASSESSMENTS AWARDED IN RESPECT OF THOSE PERIODS TO THE OFFICIALS ACTUALLY PROMOTED WOULD , IN THE AGGREGATE , HAVE BEEN BETTER THAN THOSE AWARDED TO THE APPLICANT . THERE IS NOTHING IN THE DESCRIPTIVE PARTS OF THE FINAL REPORTS TO SUGGEST THAT THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT FOUNDED ON AN OBJECTIVE APPRAISAL .
17 IT HAS THEREFORE NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THE IRREGULARITY ESTABLISHED BY THE COURT MIGHT HAVE HAD A DECISIVE INFLUENCE ON THE PROMOTION PROCEDURE . FOR THAT REASON , THE COURT CANNOT ACCEPT THE PRINCIPAL SUBMISSIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPLICANT IN HIS OBSERVATIONS OF 9 AUGUST 1981 .
18 AS REGARDS THE SECONDARY SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT REQUIRING THE COMMISSION TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS , IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED FIRST OF ALL THAT THE APPLICATION IS DIRECTED EXCLUSIVELY AGAINST THE PROMOTION PROCEDURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1978 . IN THAT RESPECT , THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL YEARS 1979 AND 1980 , THE PRODUCTION OF WHICH IS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT , ARE NOT MATERIAL .
19 SECONDLY , IT MUST BE RECALLED THAT THE SOLE ARGUMENT RELIED UPON BY THE APPLICANT IN HIS APPLICATION IS CONFINED TO HIS PERIODIC REPORTS FOR 1973 TO 1975 AND FOR 1975 TO 1977 . THE FACT THAT IN HIS OBSERVATIONS OF 9 AUGUST 1981 THE APPLICANT QUESTIONS WHETHER THE PROMOTION BODIES AND THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAVE TAKEN SUFFICIENT ACCOUNT OF OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTES THE RAISING OF A FRESH ISSUE . THAT ISSUE IS NOT BASED ON MATTERS OF LAW OR OF FACT WHICH HAVE COME TO LIGHT IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT . THIS MATTER MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 42 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE .
20 ON THOSE GROUNDS , IT IS ALSO UNNECESSARY TO UPHOLD THE SECONDARY SUBMISSIONS PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANT IN HIS OBSERVATIONS ON 9 AUGUST 1981 .
21 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . HOWEVER , UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , IN PROCEEDINGS BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES , INSTITUTIONS ARE TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
22 AS REGARDS CASE 51/80 IN WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE BY THE INTERIM JUDGMENT OF 18 DECEMBER 1980 , THE PARTIES MUST BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS , PURSUANT TO THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS .
23 AS REGARDS CASE 156/79 , THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE COMMISSION IS TO BEAR ALL THE COSTS . ACCORDINGLY THE COMMISSION MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY ALL THE COSTS , INCLUDING THOSE OF THE APPLICANT .
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION IN CASE 156/79 ;
2 . IN THAT CASE , ORDERS THE COMMISSION TO PAY ALL THE COSTS , INCLUDING THOSE OF THE APPLICANT ;
3 . IN CASE 51/80 , IN WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE BY INTERIM JUDGMENT OF 18 DECEMBER 1980 , ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
