CASE BE CALCULATED IN PRINCIPLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RAIL FARE AND ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES ON ANOTHER BASIS .
THEREFORE A CLEAR DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN AUTHORIZATION TO USE A PRIVATE CAR AND THE PAYMENT OF AN ALLOWANCE AT A RATE PER KILOMETRE .
WHILST THE ABOVE-MENTIONED AUTHORIZATION ONLY ESTABLISHES THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO AN OFFICIAL USING HIS OWN CAR, THE GRANT OF A RATE PER KILOMETRE PRESUPPOSES ON THE OTHER HAND THAT THE USE OF THAT MEANS OF TRANSPORT MUST BE RECOGNIZED AS BEING IN THE INTEREST OF THE SERVICE .
MOREOVER, AS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE, THE TRAVEL ORDERS ARE IN PRACTICE FREQUENTLY ISSUED BY THE IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR OF THE OFFICIAL ENTRUSTED WITH A MISSION, SO THAT ULTIMATELY THE DECISION WITH REGARD TO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF MISSION EXPENSES COMES UNDER THE GENERAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION, A PRACTICE NECESSARY TO AVOID DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOUR OF OR TO THE DETRIMENT OF CERTAIN OFFICIALS OR OF CERTAIN GROUPS OF OFFICIALS .
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING, IT MUST BE ADMITTED, AS A GENERAL RULE, THAT THE STATEMENTS ON TRAVEL ORDERS, INDICATING ' PRIVATE CAR ' AS A MEANS OF TRANSPORT, WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THAT THE USE OF THIS MEANS IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, MAY ONLY BE INTERPRETED AS A MERE AUTHORIZATION .
P.70
CONSEQUENTLY THE APPLICANT'S ARGUMENT IS UNFOUNDED, BUT A CHECK MUST BE MADE WITH REGARD TO EACH MISSION WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER THE CONDITIONS IN FACT AND IN LAW FOR GRANTING A RATE PER KILOMETRE HAVE BEEN SATISFIED .
2 . EXAMINATION OF THE DIFFERENT MISSIONS
THE EXAMINATION OF THESE MISSIONS WILL BE BASED ON THE DETAILED INFORMATION APPEARING IN A STATEMENT OF THE MISSIONS IN QUESTION, WHICH IS DEALT WITH IN POINT ( A ) OF THE REPLY OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF 31 OCTOBER 1963 TO THE WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF THE COURT AND WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DISPUTED ( SEE BELOW : ' STATEMENT ').
ACCORDING TO THIS STATEMENT, THE MISSIONS WHICH MUST BE EXAMINED ARE THOSE APPEARING UNDER NOS 1, 5 TO 16, 18 AND 19, AND ANOTHER MISSION CARRIED OUT FROM 2 TO 6 OR 7 APRIL 1962 .
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE MISSIONS MENTIONED UNDER NOS 2, 3 AND 4 SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS THEY NO LONGER FORM PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISPUTE FOR THE REASONS SET OUT UNDER 1(A ) ABOVE .
THE SAME OBTAINS FOR MISSION NO 17, FOR WHICH THE SUM CLAIMED BY THE APPLICANT AND THAT TENDERED OR PAID BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY AGREE .
A - MISSIONS RELATING TO NUMBERS 1 AND 5 TO 9 OF THE STATEMENT ( CLAIM FOR 4615 BELGIAN FRANCS, REDUCED TO 4246 BELGIAN FRANCS IN THE REPLY )
( A ) THESE MISSIONS MUST BE EXAMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLES 17(D ) AND 13(D ) OF THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE ECSC, IN ITS ORIGINAL VERSION . THE LATTER PROVISION LAYS DOWN IN