OF THE BUILDING AND , SECONDLY , TO LIVE THERE AND TO USE IT , RIGHTS WHICH ARE FEATURES OF RIGHTS IN REM IN THAT BUILDING .
18 IT MUST BE HELD THAT SUCH INTERESTS MAY BE EVIDENCE OF A PERMANENT LINK , WHICH MUST BE ASSESSED IN EVERY INDIVIDUAL CASE BY THE INSTITUTION CONCERNED . THEIR EXISTENCE IS SUFFICIENTLY OBJECTIVE TO BE VERIFIED BY THE INSTITUTION AND THEY CANNOT , ANY MORE THAN RIGHTS IN REM RECORDED IN PUBLIC REGISTERS , BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . IN THIS CASE , SUCH INTERESTS HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE COMMISSION WHICH TOOK THE VIEW IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF 12 OCTOBER 1983 THAT ' ONLY A CERTIFICATE FROM THE LAND REGISTER OR A NOTARIAL DEED SHOWING A PERSON TO BE THE OWNER OF PROPERTY MAY BE RECOGNIZED AS PROOF OF LEGAL OWNERSHIP FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ' .
19 IT FOLLOWS THAT IN THAT RESPECT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS VITIATED BY A MANIFEST ERROR OF LAW .
20 IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT , FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE CENTRE OF INTERESTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 7 ( 3 ) OF ANNEX VII , THE PLACE WHERE THE OFFICIAL ' S MARITAL AND FAMILY RESIDENCE IS SITUATED , WHERE IT IS EVIDENCED BY THE OFFICIAL ' S MAIN FAMILY TIES , CANNOT BE DISREGARDED IF THE HUSBAND AND WIFE HAVE ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED THEIR PERMANENT RESIDENCE THERE BEFORE EITHER OR BOTH OF THEM ENTERED THE SERVICE . IT IS ILLOGICAL , WHEN THE SECOND INDENT , UNDER ( A ), OF ARTICLE 2 ( 2 ) OF THE DECISION OF 15 JULY 1980 PROVIDES THAT THE ' CENTRE OF INTERESTS ' IS TO MEAN THE PLACE WHERE AN OFFICIAL RETAINS INTER ALIA HIS OR HER MAIN FAMILY TIES , THAT IS TO SAY , FAILING THE PARENTS OR GRANDPARENTS , THE PARENTS-IN-LAW OR EITHER PARENT-IN-LAW ( IN DANISH ' SVIGERFORAELDRENE ELLER EN AF DISSE ' ; IN GERMAN ' SCHWIEGERELTERN ODER EINEN SCHWIEGERELTERNTEIL ' ; IN FRENCH ' SES BEAUX-PARENTS OU L ' UN D ' EUX ' ; AND IN DUTCH ' ZIJN SCHOONOUDERS OF EEN VAN BEIDEN ' ), TO EXCLUDE THE PLACE WHICH IS THE CENTRE OF INTERESTS OF THE OFFICIAL ' S SPOUSE , WITH WHOM THE OFFICIAL ' S FAMILY TIES ARE NECESSARILY CLOSER .
21 IN THE PRESENT CASE , BY REFUSING THE APPLICANT ' S REQUEST THAT ISCHIA SHOULD BE FIXED AS HER PLACE OF ORIGIN , THE COMMISSION MANIFESTLY ALSO DISREGARDED THE FACT THAT ISCHIA HAD BEEN FIXED AS HER HUSBAND ' S PLACE OF ORIGIN AND THAT THE COUPLE HAD , BY COMMON AGREEMENT , BEFORE THEY ENTERED THE SERVICE OF THE INSTITUTIONS , ESTABLISHED THEIR MARITAL RESIDENCE THERE .
22 IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE COMMISSION ' S DECISION OF 9 AUGUST 1983 MUST BE ANNULLED AND THAT THE CASE MUST