2.

As regards those statements I have, first, the impression that no decisive conclusions may be drawn from the applicant's earlier remark, made more or less incidentally, to the effect that he was only sent to Ispra to perform duties of a temporary nature, that is, to carry out programmes which were subject to a time-limit. First, the Commission has energetically disputed both that and the related submission that the contested post has only ever been occupied at Ispra on an interim basis. It emphasizes that as ‘Directeur des projets approuvés’ the applicant's duties (co-ordination of the various projects) were in all respects permanent. Furthermore, the post was filled for the first time by the applicant and after his retirement in October 1977 a vacancy notice was drawn up the aim of which was to fill the post again. Secondly, it is to my mind of no importance whatever whether the duties in question were undertaken on a temporary or a permanent basis. The only important factor is that the applicant became an official even if in a grade which does not guarantee the same permanence as lower grades. Accordingly, the only question to be considered is what are the consequences which ensue from a premature cessation of service in accordance with Article 50 and in that connexion the applicant has himself explained elsewhere that it took place as a result of problems which arose between him and his superior. Since Article 50 provides for no possibility of differentiation such consequences can be of one type and therefore if the wording of the provision is not to be infringed the question how long the appointment was intended to last when it took effect certainly cannot be regarded as significant. However, there is no doubt as to the striking nature of the applicant's statements regarding the disadvantage which he suffers as a result of the fact that he has not remained in Italy, a country where the cost of living is lower, but has removed his place of residence to Brussels, where he was already previously employed and where, following the termination of his service with the Communities, he has been endeavouring to make a new career. The magnitude of the disadvantage involved if one compares the position of the applicant with that of officials who were employed in Brussels and who remain there after being retired from the service uhder the terms of Article 50 is clearly shown by the tables drawn up in that connexion by the Commission. As already stated, when calculated in accordance with the method applied by the Commission (application of the weighting fixed for Italy and conversion on the basis of the par values in force on 1 January 1965), the applicant's allowance is approximately 30 % to 35 % less than that received by a comparable official who was previously employed in Brussels. That such a situation is unsatisfactory is self-evident, unless it be regarded as normal for an official to remain at the place of employment following retirement from the service. That may possibly be correct in the case of the application of Article 41 of the Staff Regulations, in which a comparable rule applies, since in that case the employment is not completely terminated since such officials have, as the Court knows, priority for reinstatement. However, I must also say straightaway that I have the impression that the consequence which the applicant rightly feels to be unsatisfactory cannot be avoided by means of the interpretations which he has outlined in the course of the proceedings. (a) As regards Article 63, there is no getting around the fact that the second paragraph of that article expressly states that: ‘It’ (that is, the remuneration) ‘shall be paid in the currency of the country in which the official performs his duties.’ That provision cannot, therefore, be applied to cases such as the present precisely because this case concerns a former official who no longer performs duties on behalf of the Communities. Neither, on the other hand, do I find it possible to speak of ‘country of residence’ instead of ‘country in which the official performs his duties’, as suggested by the applicant. Even though the duty of an official to reside either in the place where he is employed or at no greater distance therefrom than is compatible with the proper performance of his duties is laid down in Article 20 of the Staff Regulations, it is surely sensible to draw a distinction between the place where the duties are performed and the place of residence. In any event, it goes beyond a permissible interpretation of the text to declare that, in a provision of the Staff Regulations, which are, moreover, careful to distinguish between the place of performance of duties and the place of residence, those concepts are simply interchangeable. (b) As regards the application by analogy of the rules relating to pensions, on the other hand, let me refer first to the quite different nature of the allowance provided for in Article 50 of the Staff Regulations and to its method of determination, which is completely different from the rules relating to pensions. Secondly let me refer to what was said earlier on the subject of the special nature of the rules relating to pensions. Moreover, in the light of the critical remarks made by Mr Advocate General Mayras in Case 28/74 (Gillet) it is scarcely possible to advocate the extension of individual principles contained within those rules to cover circumstances of a different nature. (c) The same also applies not least as regards the rules laid down by the regulations to which I have just referred which relate to measures providing for premature termination of service in consequence of the merger of the executive bodies of the Communities and the accession of the new Member States. It was expressly provided in those regulations that the weighting for the place of residence was to be applied and the allowances due are therefore paid in the currency of the country of residence. The fifth paragraph of Article 50, on the other hand, refers to the application of the weighting fixed for the place where the official was last employed. If that weighting were combined — which, by the way, the applicant does not wish — with payment in the currency of the country of residence (that is, in the present case, if the Italian weighting were applied to the allowance expressed in Belgian francs), the result would be an unjustified advantage since at the appropriate time the Italian weighting was very high, having regard to changes in the par values of the lira: calculated in lire the applicant's allowance would be greater than the amount of his last basic salary. I can, however, see no justification for eliminating from Article 50 the reference to the weighting fixed for the place where the official was last employed. That would be an application the provision of which is contrary to its wording and would certainly no longer have anything to do with an application of legal provisions by analogy. (d) It is therefore established that in principle there is nothing to be said against the Commission's interpretation of Article 50, precisely because a close material connexion exists between the weighting and the choice of the currency in which Community emoluments are paid; that follows from the function of the weighting, which is to take account inter alia of currency developments. In that connexion it is also clear that, as regards the currency of payment, there is no lacuna in Article 50 which might entail an application of the provisions by analogy in the sense recommended by the applicant.