TO BE ENTITLED TO THE ALLOWANCE . IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT HE FULFILS BOTH CONDITIONS .
7 ACCORDING TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , ON THE OTHER HAND , NEITHER OF THE TWO SITUATIONS REFERRED TO IN THE RELEVANT PROVISION MUST EXIST IN THE CASE OF THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED . THE PARLIAMENT CONTENDS THAT THE APPLICANT BOTH HABITUALLY RESIDED AND CARRIED ON HIS MAIN OCCUPATION IN LUXEMBOURG .
8 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE OBJECT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND FROM ITS WORDING IN THE VARIOUS LANGUAGES THAT THE EXPARTRIATION ALLOWANCE MAY BE GRANTED ONLY WHERE NEITHER OF THE SITUATIONS REFERRED TO IS ESTABLISHED . AS THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD ( SEE INTER ALIA THE JUDGMENT OF 20 . 2 . 1975 , CASE 21/74 AIROLA ( 1975 ) ECR 221 ), THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE IS INTENDED TO COMPENSATE OFFICIALS FOR THE SPECIAL EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE RESULTING FROM TAKING UP EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMMUNITIES AND BEING THEREBY OBLIGED TO CHANGE THEIR RESIDENCE . THE APPLICANT CAN THEREFORE CLAIM THE ALLOWANCE ONLY IF HE HAS NEITHER HABITUALLY RESIDED NOR CARRIED ON HIS MAIN OCCUPATION IN LUXEMBOURG .
9 IN THIS CASE IT IS SUFFICIENT TO FIND THAT THE APPLICANT MAINTAINED HIS PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN LUXEMBOURG DURING THE WHOLE OF THE REFERENCE PERIOD AND THAT HIS RESIDENCE THERE WAS INTERRUPTED ONLY BY A FEW BRIEF PERIODS THE LONGEST OF WHICH WAS THREE OR FOUR MONTHS AND WHICH ALTOGETHER DID NOT EXCEED NINE OR 10 MONTHS .
10 THE TRANSIENT NATURE OF THOSE PERIODS DURING WHICH HE STAYED OUTSIDE LUXEMBOURG IS MADE ALL THE MORE CLEAR BY THE FACT THAT DURING THOSE PERIODS THE APPLICANT STAYED EITHER WITH A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY OR IN AN HOTEL , AND THAT HE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY HIS WIFE . THAT APPEARS FROM THE STATEMENTS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT HIMSELF AND FROM THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE OBERLANDESGERICHT KOBLENZ APPOINTING HIM RECHTSREFERENDAR , WHICH SHOWS THAT THE APPLICANT HAD WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO REMOVAL , TRANSPORTATION AND SEPARATION ALLOWANCES FOR THE DURATION OF THAT EMPLOYMENT , WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CERTAIN TRAINING COURSES ORGANIZED IN CONNECTION WITH HIS WORK .
11 SUCH SPORADIC AND BRIEF ABSENCES FROM THE COUNTRY OF EMPLOYMENT , WHICH MOREOVER WERE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY ANY INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON CONCERNED TO ESTABLISH THE PERMANENT CENTRE OF HIS INTERESTS IN ANOTHER STATE , CANNOT BE CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT ' S RESIDENCE IN THE STATE OF EMPLOYMENT OF ITS HABITUAL NATURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
12 SINCE THE APPLICANT THEREFORE HABITUALLY RESIDED IN LUXEMBOURG DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION , THE ARGUMENT ALLEGING INFRINGEMENT OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS MUST BE REJECTED , AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT ALSO HABITUALLY CARRIED ON HIS MAIN OCCUPATION IN LUXEMBOURG DURING THAT PERIOD .
13 AS A FURTHER BASIS FOR HIS CLAIM THE APPLICANT ALLEGES A BREACH