BY THE FACT THAT ONLY THE SALARIES PAID BY THE COMMUNITIES AND SUMS TRANSFERRED FROM OTHER CONVERTIBLE ACCOUNTS MAY BE DEPOSITED IN SUCH ACCOUNTS AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , BY THE FACT THAT THEY PERMIT ALL EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS TO BE EFFECTED ON THE REGULATED MARKET . HOWEVER , SUCH ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE OPENED FOR OFFICIALS OF THE COMMUNITIES WHO ARE BELGIAN OR LUXEMBOURG NATIONALS , WHO ARE PERMITTED TO OPEN ONLY NON-CONVERTIBLE ACCOUNTS WHICH GRANT ACCESS TO THE REGULATED MARKET FOR CERTAIN SPECIFIC TRANSACTIONS ONLY .
4 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES SET OUT ABOVE , THE SALARY OF THE APPLICANT , WHO IS OF BELGIAN NATIONALITY , WAS PAID BY THE COMMISSION INTO A NON-CONVERTIBLE ACCOUNT WHICH HE HAD DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE . CONSIDERING THAT THE COMMISSION HAD THEREBY ' ' FAILED TO RESPECT HIS LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN THE MATTER OF THE PAYMENT OF SUMS OWED TO HIM , BECAUSE IT HAD NOT ADOPTED AT THE PROPER TIME THE MEASURES REQUIRED BY THE FACTS AND BY LAW ' ' , HE SUBMITTED ON 17 NOVEMBER 1981 A COMPLAINT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS .
5 THAT COMPLAINT WAS REJECTED BY DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 18 MAY 1982 , AND THE APPLICANT THEN LODGED THIS APPLICATION BY WHICH HE IN SUBSTANCE SEEKS TO OBTAIN , ON THE ONE HAND , THE PAYMENT OF HIS SALARY INTO A SPECIAL FOREIGN CONVERTIBLE ACCOUNT AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , THE PAYMENT OF THE SUMS OF WHICH HE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED SINCE FEBRUARY 1981 AS A RESULT OF THE PAYMENT OF HIS SALARY INTO A NON-CONVERTIBLE ACCOUNT .
6 AS REGARDS THE PART OF THE APPLICATION CLAIMING PAYMENT OF SALARY INTO A CONVERTIBLE ACCOUNT , IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT , ACCORDING TO ARTICLES 90 ( 2 ) AND 91 ( 1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN DISPUTES BETWEEN THE COMMUNITIES AND ANY PERSON TO WHOM THE STAFF REGULATIONS APPLY REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF AN ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING SUCH PERSONS , EITHER WHERE THE INSTITUTION CONCERNED HAS TAKEN A DECISION OR WHERE IT HAS FAILED TO ADOPT A MEASURE PRESCRIBED BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS . IN ADDITION , ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 91 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , AN APPEAL SHALL LIE ONLY IF IT IS LODGED FOLLOWING THE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED REJECTION OF A COMPLAINT , WHICH , WHERE IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST A FAILURE TO ADOPT A MEASURE , MUST HAVE BEEN PRECEDED BY A REQUEST TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY THAT IT TAKE A DECISION , WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90 ( 1 ).
7 THOSE CONDITIONS ARE NOT FULFILLED IN THIS CASE . IN FACT , THE APPLICANT HAS BY NO MEANS INDICATED , EITHER IN HIS APPLICATION OR DURING THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT , WHAT , IN HIS CONTENTION , THE ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING HIM CONSISTS IN , NOR HAS HE FIRST REQUESTED