OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION , LACK OF COMPETENCE , INFRINGEMENT OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND MISUSE OF POWERS .
11 IN ADDITION TO DISPUTING THE SOUNDNESS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ACTION , THE PARLIAMENT HAS PUT FORWARD IN ITS DEFENCE AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY . IT IS APPROPRIATE FIRST TO CONSIDER THAT OBJECTION .
12 THE PARLIAMENT MAINTAINS THAT THE APPLICANTS ' COMPLAINTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE COMPLAINTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . ACCORDING TO THE PARLIAMENT , BEFORE A COMPLAINT MAY BE MADE PURSUANT TO THAT ARTICLE IT IS NECESSARY THAT THERE BE AN ACT OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE OFFICIAL , THE ACT BEING EITHER A DECISION TAKEN BY THE AUTHORITY OR A FAILURE BY IT TO ADOPT A MEASURE PRESCRIBED BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PARLIAMENT HAS NOT TAKEN ANY DECISION RELATING TO THE APPLICANTS OR IN REGARD TO THEIR ENTITLEMENT TO PENSION . IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE PARLIAMENT TO TAKE A DECISION TO THE EFFECT SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANTS , THAT IS TO SAY , A DECISION NOT TO APPLY IN THEIR CASE THE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL . THE PARLIAMENT HAS NOT FAILED TO ADOPT IN RELATION TO THE APPLICANTS ANY MEASURE PRESCRIBED BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
13 THE PARLIAMENT SUBMITS THAT ARTICLE 184 OF THE TREATY , ON WHICH THE APPLICANTS RELY , DOES NOT IN FACT PROVIDE AN INDEPENDENT FORM OF ACTION BUT IS CONFINED TO DEALING WITH ISSUES OF LEGALITY WHICH ARE RAISED INCIDENTALLY , THAT IS TO SAY THOSE ARISING IN PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE THE LEGALITY OF OTHER ACTS AS THEIR PRINCIPAL SUBJECT-MATTER AND WHICH HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTITUTED .
14 IT IS FURTHER MAINTAINED THAT THE CASE-LAW OF THE COURT DEMONSTRATES THAT AN OFFICIAL MAY NOT AVAIL HIMSELF OF OTHER REMEDIES THAN THOSE PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 179 OF THE TREATY AND ARTICLES 91 AND 92 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO BRING BEFORE THE COURT A QUESTION WHICH MUST BE SETTLED ACCORDING TO THE CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFICIALS AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE JUDICIAL REMEDY PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY IS NOT OPEN TO HIM .
15 THE APPLICANTS SUBMIT THAT THE DECISION REQUESTED OF THE PARLIAMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GENERAL DECISION NOT TO APPLY THE REGULATIONS BUT A DECISION NOT TO APPLY THEM TO A LIMITED GROUP OF PERSONS . THE APPLICANTS MAINTAIN THAT , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 179 OF THE TREATY , THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BRING BEFORE THE COURT THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE REGULATIONS , ON A PROPER CONSTRUCTION , ARE APPLICABLE TO THEM AND TO RELY ON ARTICLE 184 OF THE TREATY IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS .
16 THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE PARLIAMENT MUST BE UPHELD . THE REGULATIONS IN QUESTION ARE OF GENERAL APPLICATION AND THE APPLICANTS MAY NOT CLAIM THAT THEY CONSTITUTE DECISIONS WHICH ARE OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THEM IN ORDER TO CALL THEIR VALIDITY