COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS HAD COMMITTED THEMSELVES TO MAINTAINING A SITUATION ARISING FROM THE APPLICATION OF THOSE TEMPORARY EXPEDIENTS WHICH FAVOURED A PARTICULAR CATEGORY OF PENSIONERS , THE APPLICANT ' S SUBMISSION MUST BE REJECTED IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ACTUAL INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW SYSTEM .
31 WITH REGARD TO THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ITS INTRODUCTION , IT SHOULD BE RECALLED THAT IT WAS THE COUNCIL ' S RELUCTANCE TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE RATES OF EXCHANGE WHICH CAUSED THE PROGRESSIVE INCREASE IN THE BENEFITS DUE TO THE CATEGORY OF PENSIONERS TO WHICH THE APPLICANT BELONGS . THAT INCREASE OCCURRED OVER A PERIOD OF ABOUT SEVEN YEARS AND YET THE COUNCIL DECIDED , BY INCORPORATING THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 4 OF REGULATION NO 3085/78 , TO MAKE PENSIONERS BEAR THE LOSS OF THAT INCREASE AFTER A RELATIVELY SHORT TRANSITIONAL PERIOD , A SYSTEM OF MONTHLY REDUCTIONS OVER A PERIOD OF TEN MONTHS BEING APPLIED FROM 1 OCTOBER 1979 , THAT IS TO SAY SIX MONTHS AFTER REGULATIONS NOS 3085/78 AND 3086/78 ENTERED INTO FORCE .
32 IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE DETERIORATION IN THE SITUATION WHICH OCCURRED BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS NOS 3085/78 AND 3086/78 WAS NOT IN ANY WAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CONDUCT OF THE PENSIONERS . THE PROLONGED PERIOD OF DETERIORATION WAS DUE TO THE INACTION OF THE COUNCIL , WHICH FAILED TO RECTIFY EXCHANGE RATES WHICH NO LONGER BORE ANY RELATION TO ECONOMIC REALITY .
33 WHILST THERE MAY BE SOME EXPLANATION FOR THE COUNCIL ' S INACTION IT MUST NONE THE LESS NOT BE OVERLOOKED THAT PENSIONERS BENEFITING FROM THAT INACTION WERE ENTITLED TO EXPECT THE COUNCIL TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE SITUATION IN WHICH THEY HAD BEEN PLACED BY THE PROLONGED APPLICATION OF THE SYSTEM TEMPORARILY USED . THAT IS PARTICULARLY TRUE IN THE CASE OF PENSIONS , SINCE THEY ARE INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE LEFT THE SERVICE OF THE COMMUNITIES ENJOY AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING .
34 IT FOLLOWS THAT AFTER FAILING TO ACT FOR A PERIOD EXTENDING OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS , THE COUNCIL COULD NOT , WITHOUT FAILING TO PROTECT PENSIONERS ' LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS , LAY DOWN A TRANSITIONAL PERIOD FOR THE PROGRESSIVE REDUCTION OF THE AMOUNTS PAID WHICH LASTED ONLY TEN MONTHS . A PERIOD OF AT LEAST TWICE THAT LENGTH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENVISAGED FOR THAT PROCESS .
35 THE SUBMISSION PUT FORWARD AS TO THE FAILURE TO PROTECT LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION IS THEREFORE WELL FOUNDED IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PERIOD OVER WHICH THE TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS INTRODUCED BY THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 4 OF REGULATION NO 3085/78 EXTENDED .
36 IT FOLLOWS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS WHICH WERE LAWFUL , THE COMMISSION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO APPLY REGULATIONS NOS 3085/78 AND 3086/78 TO THE APPLICANT AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE CONTESTED DECISION MUST BE ANNULLED .
37 IT IS FOR THE COMPETENT INSTITUTIONS TO ADOPT THE MEASURES NECESSARY TO REMEDY