176/86, IN WHICH MRS HOUYOUX, HAVING MISLAID HER LEASE, WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE, BY WAY OF EVIDENCE, ONLY A STATEMENT DRAWN UP BY THE OWNER OF THE RENTED PREMISES AFTER HER ASSIGNMENT TO PARIS HAD COME TO AN END .
8 IT MUST BE POINTED OUT, IN THAT REGARD, THAT ARTICLE 3 OF THE 1966 REGULATION, WHICH IS RELIED UPON BY THE COMMISSION, IS JUSTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT BEFORE GRANTING THE RENT ALLOWANCE THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY NEEDS TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN VERIFICATIONS . HOWEVER, IT IS DIFFICULT OR EVEN IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO IF THE OFFICIAL IN QUESTION HAS ALREADY LEFT THE PREMISES IN QUESTION . A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THAT PROVISION THEREFORE LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RENT ALLOWANCE CANNOT NORMALLY BE GRANTED IF THE OFFICIAL IN QUESTION NO LONGER OCCUPIES THE PREMISES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THAT ALLOWANCE IS CLAIMED .
9 HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT THE ALLOWANCE FROM BEING GRANTED IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD PRECEDING THE SUBMISSION OF THE OFFICIAL' S APPLICATION WHERE HE STILL OCCUPIES THE PREMISES IN QUESTION, SINCE IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IS ABLE TO VERIFY ANY MATTERS WHICH IT MAY CONSIDER NECESSARY . ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 3 OF THE 1966 REGULATION REQUIRES THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE THE OFFICIAL' S CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PREMISES "BEFORE GRANTING ANY ALLOWANCE", THAT PROVISION CANNOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING THE OFFICIAL IN QUESTION OF THE BENEFIT OF THE ALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE TIME WHEN HE MOVES INTO THOSE PREMISES AND THE TIME WHEN THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY DECIDES TO GRANT THE ALLOWANCE AFTER CARRYING OUT THE NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE OFFICIAL' S APPLICATION .
10 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PRINCIPAL SUBMISSION IS UNFOUNDED, SO FAR AS MRS HOUYOUX IS CONCERNED, BUT THAT THE DECISION GRANTING THE RENT ALLOWANCE TO MRS GUERY IS UNLAWFUL IN SO FAR AS IT REFUSES TO GRANT THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1 JULY 1981 AND 1 JUNE 1985 .
11 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION ALLEGING A BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION WITH REGARD TO MRS HOUYOUX .
12 IN THAT REGARD, THE COMMISSION HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE FACTS ALLEGED BY THE APPLICANTS ARE CORRECT . THE VADE-MECUM FOR THE USE OF OFFICIALS WHO ARE TRANSFERRED DID INDEED CONTAIN AN ERROR AS REGARDS THE CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF THE RENT ALLOWANCE TO OFFICIALS POSTED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY . HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS THAT OFFICIALS CANNOT BE UNAWARE OF THE RIGHTS CONFERRED UPON THEM BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS, A COPY OF WHICH, MOREOVER, THE COMMISSION TOOK CARE TO GIVE TO THE APPLICANTS WHEN THEY TOOK UP THEIR DUTIES .
13 IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM THE COURT, THE COMMISSION ALSO STATED THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT EMPLOYED AT THE COMMISSION' S OFFICE IN PARIS RECEIVED A MEMORANDUM DATED 29 JANUARY 1985 TO WHICH THE RELEVANT ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT IN BRUSSELS HAD ATTACHED COPIES OF THE 1966 REGULATION AND