APRIL 1969 .
15 THE DAILY SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE MUST THEREFORE BE CALCULATED FROM THIS DATE .
16 IT IS ONLY FROM 1 OCTOBER 1969 THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID 'TO THE EXTENT OF THE NOTIONAL REMOVAL EXPENSES '.
17 HOWEVER IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN PAID TO THE FIRST APPLICANT SINCE 27 SEPTEMBER 1969 .
18 IT IS ESTABLISHED THEREFORE THAT THE FIRST APPLICANT HAS NEVER RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT WHATSOEVER AS NOTIONAL REMOVAL EXPENSES .
19 AS REGARDS THIS CLAIM THE APPEAL SUCCEEDS .
THE SECOND CLAIM
20 THE SECOND APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT UNDER ARTICLE 10 OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS, AS IT STOOD AT THE TIME, SHE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DAILY SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE DATE OF HER FIRST SECONDMENT TO BRUSSELS AND THAT OF HER REMOVAL .
21 THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES THAT 'WHERE AN OFFICIAL FURNISHES EVIDENCE THAT HE CANNOT CONTINUE TO RESIDE IN HIS OWN HOME AND HAS NOT REMOVED TO THE PLACE WHERE HE IS EMPLOYED, HE SHALL BE ENTITLED FOR NOT MORE THAN TWELVE MONTHS TO A DAILY SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE ...'.
22 THE ADMINISTRATION DISPUTES THAT IN THE CASE IN QUESTION THE SECOND APPLICANT COULD NOT CONTINUE TO RESIDE IN HER HOME, WHICH, AS FROM HER ARRIVAL IN BRUSSELS, WAS RE-ESTABLISHED IN THE SMALL FLAT INTO WHICH SHE MOVED WITH HER HUSBAND .
23 THE SECOND APPLICANT REPLIED THAT THE MATRIMONIAL HOME REMAINED IN LUXEMBOURG, SINCE A REMOVAL OF THE COMMON FURNITURE TO BRUSSELS COULD NOT BE ENVISAGED SO LONG AS HER POSITION REMAINED THAT OF A SECONDMENT .
24 MOREOVER, IN NOT GRANTING THE SECOND APPLICANT THE AUTHORIZATION TO REMOVE WHICH SHE HAD REQUESTED, THE ADMINISTRATION HAD CONFIRMED THAT IT HAD NOT YET TAKEN A DECISION REGARDING HER .
25 THE BASIS FOR DAILY SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE LIES INTER ALIA IN THE OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE OFFICIAL TO REMOVE TO A RESIDENCE OTHER THAN THAT WHICH HE OCCUPIED PREVIOUSLY, WITHOUT HOWEVER BEING ABLE TO GIVE UP THIS LATTER .
26 THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH WAS NOT THE CASE .
27 THE FACT THAT THIS OFFICIAL AT THE PLACE OF HER SECONDMENT REJOINED HER HUSBAND, HIMSELF AN OFFICIAL, IN A PROVISIONAL RESIDENCE IS NOT DECISIVE, SINCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THEIR MATRIMONIAL HOME REMAINED IN LUXEMBOURG .
28 SO LONG, THEREFORE, AS THE REMOVAL HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE, I.E ., BEFORE 27 JANUARY 1972, THE SECOND APPLICANT OUGHT TO HAVE RECEIVED THE DAILY SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE WITHIN THE LIMITS PROVIDED FOR BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
29 THUS THE APPEAL SUCCEEDS ON THE SECOND CLAIM .
Decision on costs
30 UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
31 THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED IN ITS SUBMISSIONS AND MUST THEREFORE PAY THE COSTS .
Operative part
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . ANNULS THE DECISION BY WHICH THE COMMISSION