PROCEDURE PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THEM .
13 THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD ( IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 7 FEBRUARY 1984 IN CASE 166/82 COMMISSION V ITALY (( 1984 )) ECR 459 ) THAT THE SCOPE OF AN ACTION BROUGHT UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE TREATY IS DELIMITED BY THE PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR BY THAT ARTICLE AND THAT THE COMMISSION' S REASONED OPINION AND ITS APPLICATION MUST BE FOUNDED ON THE SAME GROUNDS AND SUBMISSIONS . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER, IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, A COMPLAINT THAT WAS NOT FORMULATED IN THE REASONED OPINION .
14 ACCORDINGLY THE COMMISSION' S THIRD SUBMISSION MUST BE DECLARED INADMISSIBLE .
DEFINITION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES COVERED BY THIS CASE
15 BEFORE CONSIDERING THE OTHER COMPLAINTS MADE BY THE COMMISSION AGAINST BELGIUM, IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE FAMILY ALLOWANCE SCHEME ESTABLISHED BY THE ROYAL DECREES OF 15 JULY AND 19 NOVEMBER 1982 CONFERS ENTITLEMENT TO ALLOWANCES OF THAT KIND ONLY ON PERSONS WHO ARE AFFILIATED TO THE SCHEME, PARTICULARLY BY VIRTUE OF THE PURSUIT OF AN ACTIVITY AS AN EMPLOYED OR SELF-EMPLOYED PERSON, AND WHO PAY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THAT END .
16 ACCORDINGLY, AS THE COMMISSION POINTED OUT AT THE HEARING, THIS CASE REALLY CONCERNS ONLY THE SITUATION OF AN OFFICIAL OR SERVANT OF THE COMMUNITIES WHOSE SPOUSE CARRIES ON IN BELGIUM AN ACTIVITY AS AN EMPLOYED OR SELF-EMPLOYED PERSON AND IS FOR THAT REASON AFFILIATED TO THE BELGIAN FAMILY ALLOWANCE SCHEME DESCRIBED EARLIER, AND THE SITUATION OF AN OFFICIAL OR SERVANT OF THE COMMUNITIES WHO HIMSELF HAS PART-TIME PAID EMPLOYMENT IN BELGIUM, BUT OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS, ENTAILING HIS AFFILIATION TO THE AFORESAID SCHEME . MORE PRECISELY, THE COMMISSION ALLEGES THAT BELGIUM INCORPORATED IN ITS LEGISLATION CERTAIN PROVISIONS WHICH LED, IN SUCH SITUATIONS, TO BELGIAN FAMILY ALLOWANCES BEING PAID ONLY IN THE FORM OF SUPPLEMENTS TO THE ALLOWANCES OF THE SAME KIND PAYABLE UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
17 THE COURT IS THEREFORE CALLED UPON TO MAKE A DECLARATION IN THIS CASE ONLY IN RELATION TO THOSE SITUATIONS .
FIRST COMPLAINT : INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 67*(2 ) AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 68 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND ARTICLE 20 OF THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
18 THE COMMISSION STATES THAT ARTICLE 67*(2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS CONTAINS A PROVISION AGAINST THE OVERLAPPING OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES WHICH IS ALSO TO BE FOUND IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 68 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND WHICH HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO OTHER COMMUNITY SERVANTS BY ARTICLE 20 OF THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT . THAT RULE AGAINST THE OVERLAPPING OF BENEFITS REQUIRES OFFICIALS TO DECLARE ALLOWANCES OF LIKE NATURE PAID FROM OTHER SOURCES SO AS TO ENABLE THOSE ALLOWANCES TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THOSE PAYABLE UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS . IN ADOPTING ARTICLE 67*(2 ), THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE WISHED TO MAKE THE ALLOWANCES PROVIDED FOR BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE BENEFITS OF LIKE NATURE PAID UNDER THE VARIOUS NATIONAL SYSTEMS .