DECISIONS WITHDRAWING OR REFUSING THE APPLICANTS THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE, AND OF THE DECISIONS REJECTING THEIR COMPLAINTS WITH A VIEW TO OBTAINING THE GRANT OF THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1 JULY 1972 .
3 BY PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS, ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 91 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE DEFENDANTS RAISED ARGUMENTS OF INADMISSIBILITY BY REASON OF THE LATENESS OF THE APPEALS, ARGUING THAT THESE HAD NOT BEEN LODGED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES LAID DOWN BY ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
4 UNDER ARTICLE 91, AN APPEAL TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE SHALL LIE ONLY IF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS PREVIOUSLY HAD A COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO IT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED THEREIN .
5 UNDER ARTICLE 90, ANY COMPLAINT AGAINST AN ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING AN OFFICIAL MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN THE DATE ON WHICH THE LATTER BECAME AWARE OF IT .
6 A SIMPLE EXAMINATION OF THE DATES OF WITHDRAWAL OR REFUSAL OF THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE ON THE ONE HAND AND THE DATES OF THE APPEALS ON THE OTHER, SHOWS THAT THE LATTER ARE INADMISSIBLE SINCE THEY WERE LODGED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME LIMITS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
7 THE APPLICANTS RETORT THAT THE APPEALS ARE IN THE FIRST PLACE ACTIONS FOR PAYMENT OF ARREARS AND THAT SUCH ACTIONS CONSTITUTE AN AUTONOMOUS FORM OF ACTION WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE TIME LIMITS OF ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
8 THE ACTIONS DESCRIBED IN THIS WAY IN FACT SEEK TO OBTAIN THE ANNULMENT OF DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTIONS AND ARE BASED ON THE ALLEGED ILLEGALITY OF THOSE DECISIONS .
9 IN NONE OF THE APPLICATIONS IS THE PAYMENT CLAIMED PRESENTED AS A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE INSTITUTIONS .
10 EVEN IF THE APPLICANTS INTENDED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE INSTITUTIONS IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS, SUCH AN ACTION IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS ITS ORIGIN IN THE ALLEGED ILLEGALITY OF THE INSTITUTIONS' DECISIONS AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE DISTINGUISHED FROM AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT .
11 THE BASIS FOR THE APPEALS THUS LIES EXCLUSIVELY IN ARTICLE 179 OF THE EEC TREATY, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION IN ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND ITS SERVANTS WITHIN THE LIMITS AND UNDER THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
12 THE APPEALS ARE THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE TIME LIMITS OF ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
13 THIS ARGUMENT MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
14 SOME OF THE APPLICANTS MAINTAIN THAT TIME HAS NOT STARTED RUNNING AGAINST THEM, SINCE THE ORIGINAL DECISIONS WITHDRAWING OR REFUSING THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE WERE NOT PROPERLY COMMUNICATED TO THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH