2 —

The amended version. The more flexible application of the regulations agreed to by the administration was confirmed and defined by the amendment of the Regulations themselves on 21 November 1960. The first two subparagraphs of Article 17 (d) allowing officials to use their own cars subject to authorization, but with reimbursement at the railway rate, were retained, but to them was added a new subparagraph, which runs thus: ‘In the case of an official travelling regularly on mission in special circumstances, however, the appointing authority may decide to grant that official an allowance per kilometre covered instead of reimbursement of rail fares, if the useof public transport and reimbursement of travel expenses on the normal basis involve definite disadvantages.’ Thereafter, the Regulations were followed some months later by a decision of the President of the High Authority approving an opinion of the administrative committee, dated 20 February 1961, which itself adopted a proposal made on 24 January 1961 by the general department of administration and finance. But on this occasion the decision does not introduce new material in relation to the Regulations; it limits itself to specifying detailed rules for its application. In particular, it provides for the way in which checking of the two joint conditions hitherto required for flat rate reimbursement shall be carried out, namely: 1. The use of public transport must involve definite disadvantages; 2. Reimbursement of travel expenses on the normal basis must also involve definite disadvantages. With regard to the first point, it is stated that the flat rate arrangement may only be used ‘in connexion with journeys which have been found, at the responsibility of the Director of the Inspection Directorate, to be impossible to carry out under satisfactory conditions by means of public transport’. Furthermore, in accordance with the proposal of the general department of administration and finance, adopted by the administrative committee, as we have said, ‘reasons must be stated on the travel order’. I wish to point out that, under this new system, the flat rate reimbursement is no longer necessarily limited to movements around the mission centre: it may cover the main journey, but it requires evidence and reasons. With regard to the second point, it must be ‘found that reimbursement of expenses on the normal basis would be clearly insufficient (subsequent check on the basis of a detailed reasoned statement of the distance covered)’. Thus the respective responsibilities of the Inspection Directorate and the department charged with financial supervision are clearly distinguished and logically separated. In fact it appears that the principal difficulties which have arisen in the application of this system arise from the fact that the head of the Inspection Directorate continued to consider that authorization of an official to use his own car was sufficient to justify entitlement to the flat rate allowance. According to the provisions which I have just reviewed, this is plainly wrong. Thus the administration found itself bound to refuse this method of reimbursement when the travel instructions did not expressly mention, giving reasons in support, that it would be impossible to carry out the movement under satisfactory conditions by means of public transport. It is clear that such a requirement is justified in particular for a journey undertaken from the place of employment to the principal mission centre, since this journey is of a considerable length and there are good rail connexions. A last point remains, that relating to the period during which a general strike prevailed on the railways in Belgium. The High Authority continues to take refuge behind the Regulations, refusing, in this instance too, the flat rate reimbursement. This time I think that it is wrong. Any regulation, even a financial one, must be applied reasonably. Here we have circumstances which made it impossible to use the means of transport which, even although it was not in fact habitually used, is the means of transport normally used for the basis of the allowance. The official's use of his own car is therefore in the interest of the service, and, in accordance with the spirit of the Regulations, the interest of the service justifies the flat rate reimbursement. In my opinion this is also the case under the original Regulations which did not grant the flat rate allowance for the full distance covered on the mission. In sum, I suggest that you acknowledge only the last head of claim, which, in accordance with the calculations agreed between the parties, relates to the increase of travel expenses of 2968 Belgian francs. To this should be added the sums which the High Authority recognizes to be due from it and which it offered to pay in its conclusions in its statement of defence, confirmed in the rejoinder, the calculation of which — being 12364 Belgian francs — is not contested by the applicant. In its rejoinder, the High Authority also offers to pay interest from the date of the claim, but only up to the date on which the statement of defence was served on the applicant. I do not think that this limitation is justified. At the date when the offer was made, the proceedings had begun, and, if you agree with my suggestions, the application will be recognized as partially founded. It seems to me that, in accordance with custom, interest must run until the date of payment. With regard to the costs, I think that it would be equitable to charge them principally to the applicant, with one quarter, for example, being charged to the defendant. As you know, only the costs incurred by the applicant are concerned, since this is a staff dispute. I am therefore of the opinion that: — note should be taken of the High Authority's offer to pay the sum of 12364 Belgian francs to Mr Lepape; — the High Authority should be ordered to pay in addition the sum of 2968 Belgian francs to Mr Lepape; — these sums should bear interest to be paid to the applicant as from 9 February 1963; — the remaining conclusions of the application should be dismissed; — one quarter of the costs incurred by the applicant should be borne by the High Authority, the expenses incurred by the latter remaining its liability in accordance with Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure.