SHE STATES THAT IN FEBRUARY 1982 THE ADMINISTRATION CONSULTED A LEGAL EXPERT WHO CONCLUDED THAT THE APPLICANT COULD , IN LAW AND IN FACT , RENOUNCE BELGIAN NATIONALITY WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF HER SECOND MARRIAGE . HOWEVER , AFTER THE APPLICANT HAD HERSELF CONTACTED THAT EXPERT HE ACKNOWLEDGED , IN A SECOND OPINION DATED 21 MARCH 1984 , THAT SHE WAS IN FACT UNABLE TO RENOUNCE BELGIAN NATIONALITY , IN VIEW OF THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECTS OF SUCH A RENUNCIATION . THAT SECOND OPINION CONSTITUTES , ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT , A NEW FACT CAPABLE OF CAUSING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH ACTION MUST BE TAKEN TO START RUNNING AGAIN .
10 SECONDLY , THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THE LETTER OF 3 APRIL 1979 WAS NOT SENT BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE AMOUNTED NOT TO A DECISION BUT MERELY TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION . CONSEQUENTLY , THE FIRST ACT WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS A DECISION WAS THE COMMUNICATION OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE ON 17 AUGUST 1984 , WHICH WAS CHALLENGED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD .
11 IN THAT REGARD IT MUST BE NOTED THAT ARTICLE 90 ( 1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT ANY OFFICIAL MAY REQUEST THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO TAKE A DECISION RELATING TO HIM . HOWEVER , THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THAT RIGHT DOES NOT ALLOW AN OFFICIAL TO SET ASIDE THE TIME-LIMITS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS FOR THE LODGING OF A COMPLAINT AND AN APPEAL BY INDIRECTLY CALLING INTO QUESTION BY MEANS OF A REQUEST A PREVIOUS DECISION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED . ONLY THE EXISTENCE OF NEW SUBSTANTIAL FACTS MAY JUSTIFY THE SUBMISSION OF A REQUEST FOR A REVIEW OF SUCH A DECISION .
12 IN THIS CASE THE FIRST ACT AMOUNTING TO A DECISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS THE ADMINISTRATION ' S LETTER OF 3 APRIL 1979 . THAT LETTER ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE APPLICANT INASMUCH AS IT DIRECTLY AFFECTED HER LEGAL POSITION , BY DISCONTINUING PAYMENT OF THE FOREIGN RESIDENCE ALLOWANCE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 JULY 1978 . THAT LETTER WAS , MOREOVER , FOLLOWED BY MEASURES FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION TERMINATING THE PAYMENT OF THE ALLOWANCE ON THAT DATE . SINCE THAT DECISION WAS NOT CONTESTED WITHIN THE PERIOD LAID DOWN IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS , IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER IT CAN BE CALLED INTO QUESTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THAT PERIOD ON THE GROUND THAT AN IMPORTANT NEW FACT HAS ARISEN .
13 IN THE FIRST PLACE , THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION SUBSEQUENTLY RE-EXAMINED THE APPLICANT ' S CASE ON HER REQUEST IN ORDER TO PROVIDE HER WITH FURTHER INFORMATION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A NEW FACT PERMITTING DEROGATION FROM THE SYSTEM OF MANDATORY TIME-LIMITS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
14 NOR MAY THE APPLICANT RELY ON THE LEGAL EXPERT ' S OPINON OF