(a)

He contends, first of all, that it is clear from the repeated amendment of the rule in question alone that the administrative authority is still searching for a suitable text with which to provide a just solution to cases requiring the doubling of the maximum allowance. Only Article 4 (5) of the ‘General implementing provisions for granting the education allowance’, which corresponds to the version of the third paragraph of Article 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in force today, has brought about a clarification in the sense of the interpretation advocated by him. Furthermore, the authorities themselves admitted in an international communication (IX-1674/F Memorandum to the Members of the Commission) that the provision in question was ambiguous. The fact that for a long time the Commission did not fully realize the content of that rule may also be deduced from the fact that it was only shortly before the application was lodged that they referred the applicant to Article 67 (3) of the Staff Regulations, which provides for the possibility of the dependent child allowance to be doubled if the child concerned is suffering from a mental or physical handicap which involves the official in heavy expenditure. That belated notification also represents a breach of the principle of good administration. I do not find these arguments convincing. It is of course true that the provision in question has been repeatedly amended but a close look at those amendments shows that on each occasion the provision has been more precisely defined. Whereas in the original version the doubling of the maximum allowance was solely dependent upon the existence of a certain distance between the school and the place of employment, the version in force at the time the application was lodged already provided expressly for the place of employment to be at least 50 km from a European school or a school working in the language of the official which was actually attended by the child. The version in force today further defines that provision, inasmuch as it is not sufficient for a child merely to attend a school working in his language which is over 50 km from the place of employment but attendance at that school must be necessary for imperative educational reasons, adequate proof of which must be provided. As a result, the meaning of the provision is sufficiently clear from its wording. At all events, it is clear from the text that the maximum allowance may only be doubled if the child attends a school which is situated over 50 km from the place of employment of the official. The ‘General implementing provisions’ applicable to the version in force in 1977 referred to by the applicant do not make any different provision, quite apart from the fact that such implementing provisions would be unable to give a different content to a basic provision whose wording is clear. Furthermore, no profitable conclusions as regards the interpretation of the provision in question may be drawn from the Commission document referred to by the applicant. That document is merely an internal statement of opinion which, moreover, relates to the version prior to the one now in force, which contained no reference to the factual criterion of imperative educational reasons, although it did clearly provide for the minimum distance of 50 km. What is more, it cannot be deduced from the fact that the Commission based its -rejection of the request on a reference to the clear wording of the provision contained in the third paragraph of Article 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations that it did not fully realize the content of that provision or the system of allowances provided for in the Staff Regulations. The allegedly belated reference to other grounds for a claim could constitute at most a breach of the duty to provide assistance. However, the record shows that the applicant applied for the doubling of the dependent child allowance as early as 30 March 1978, whcih means that he was aware of that possibility by that date at the latest. However, a medical examination carried out in connexion with that application revealed that the basic requirement of a mental or physical handicap laid down in Article 67 (3) of the Staff Regulations was not satisfied. For that reason the request was rejected by a letter from the Director-General for Personnel and Administration of 22 November 1978. That is for me evidence that the Commission, by not referring the applicant to that — as it subsequently appeared — hopeless procedure, cannot have been guilty of a breach of the duty to provide assistance.