The mere fact that the "legality" of the decision could no longer be challenged before the Court did not imply that the administration did not, in accordance with principles of good administration, have an obligation to draw all reasonable conclusions from Community Court rulings when dealing with a similar case brought before the Ombudsman. This reasoning is all the more applicable in cases where the facts and arguments presented to the Ombudsman are completely analogous to the facts and arguments presented to the Court. The Ombudsman pointed out that his mandate is to deal with maladministration, which occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it. His review is, therefore, broader than that of judicial review. That is to say, while it includes compliance with legal rules, it goes beyond issues of legality.