DETERMINING RIGHTS WHICH THE APPLICANT WAS TO DERIVE FROM A GIVEN LEGAL SITUATION .
IT IS NOT, THEREFORE, POSSIBLE TO CONCEDE THAT THE STATEMENT HAS THE CHARACTER OF A MEASURE CREATING RIGHTS FOR THE ADDRESSEE .
THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, BEING OBLIGED TO APPLY REGULATION NO 259/68 IN DEFINING THE APPLICANT' S PECUNIARY RIGHTS, COULD NOT APPLY THE INCORRECT INTERPRETATION ADOPTED IN THAT STATEMENT ONCE IT HAD BECOME AWARE OF THE MORE ACCURATE INTERPRETATION .
THE ARGUMENT BASED ON A SUPPOSED VIOLATION OF VESTED RIGHTS IS THEREFORE UNFOUNDED .
12 THE APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION
ADMISSIBILITY
13 SHOULD THE APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT BE REJECTED THE APPLICANT REQUESTS ALTERNATIVELY THAT SHE BE REINSTATED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION SHE WOULD HAVE HELD HAD SHE NOT SUBMITTED ON 18 APRIL 1968 A REQUEST FOR TERMINATION OF SERVICE, AND IN PARTICULAR THAT SHE BE REINSTATED IN A COMPARABLE POST IN THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE COMMISSION .
SHE CLAIMS THAT HER REQUEST TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SCHEME FOR TERMINATING EMPLOYMENT WAS MADE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF AN ERROR AS TO AN ESSENTIAL FACT - THE DATE ON WHICH SHE WOULD BECOME ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A PENSION - OCCASIONED BY THE WRONG INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE COMMISSION .
14 THE DECISION CONTENDS THAT THIS REQUEST, WHICH MUST IMPLY ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF 20 JUNE 1968 TERMINATING HER EMPLOYMENT, IS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS SUBMITTED AFTER EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD SPECIFIED BY ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS FOR LODGING AN APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT .
15 THE DECISION TERMINATING THE APPLICANT' S SERVICE WAS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION FOLLOWING HER REQUEST OF 18 APRIL 1968 .
ACCORDINGLY, THE PERIOD FOR BRINGING AN ACTION AGAINST THE SAID DECISION CAN ONLY BEGIN TO RUN FROM THE TIME WHEN IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT THE REQUEST OF 18 APRIL 1968, WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE DECISION IN QUESTION, WAS MADE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF AN ERROR OCCASIONED BY A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION .
THIS IS A MATTER WHICH CAN ONLY BE SETTLED BY EXAMINING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE, AND THEREFORE THE APPLICATION CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS BEING MADE OUT OF TIME .
16 NEXT, BY ASKING TO BE REINSTATED " IN A COMPARABLE POST " THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN, BRIEFLY BUT, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ADEQUATELY, THAT HER PRINCIPLE AIM IS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGE SUFFERED BY HER OWING TO THE ERROR INTO WHICH SHE WAS LED .
IN HER REPLY SHE DEFINED HER REQUEST BY ASKING ALTERNATIVELY THAT THE COMMISSION BE ORDERED TO PAY HER A SUM EQUIVALENT TO THAT WHICH SHE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED HAD HER PENSION BEEN GRANTED TO HER IN FULL FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE AGES OF 55 AND 60 YEARS .
17 SINCE THIS IS AN APPLICATION IN WHICH THE COURT HAS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION IT HAS THE POWER, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER CONCLUSIONS, NOT ONLY TO ANNUL BUT, IF NECESSARY,