ORIGIN ' IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE PLACE WHERE THE OFFICIAL WAS PERMANENTLY RESIDENT BEFORE HE ENTERED THE SERVICE AND WHERE HE WAS PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED . IT FOLLOWS THAT A CLEAR DISTINCTION MUST BE DRAWN BETWEEN THE PLACE WHERE THE OFFICIAL WAS USUALLY RESIDENT AT THE TIME OF RECRUITMENT AND HIS CENTRE OF INTERESTS . THE LATTER CONCEPT IS BASED ON THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF THE LAW GOVERNING THE PUBLIC SERVICE TO THE EFFECT THAT IT MUST BE POSSIBLE FOR AN OFFICIAL TO RETAIN HIS PERSONAL LINKS WITH THE PLACE WHERE HIS PRINCIPAL INTERESTS ARE SITUATED , NOTWITHSTANDING HIS ENTRY INTO THE SERVICE AND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THAT PLACE AND THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT .
14 IN THAT CONNECTION ARTICLE 2 OF THE COMMISSION DECISION OF 15 JULY 1980 CORRECTLY DEFINES IN GENERAL TERMS THE CENTRE OF INTERESTS AS BEING THE PLACE WHERE THE OFFICIAL RETAINS ( A ) HIS MAIN FAMILY TIES , ( B ) HIS HERITABLE INTERESTS AND ( C ) HIS ESSENTIAL CITIZEN ' S INTERESTS , BOTH ACTIVE AND PASSIVE .
15 AS REGARDS MORE PARTICULARLY AN OFFICIAL ' S HERITABLE INTERESTS , ARTICLE 2 PROVIDES THAT THEY MUST BE ' IN THE FORM OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ALREADY BUILT ' . THAT PHRASE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE COMMISSION DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS AS MEANING THAT , IN ORDER TO BENEFIT FROM ARTICLE 2 , AN OFFICIAL MUST BE THE HOLDER OF A RIGHT IN REM IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY RECORDED IN PUBLIC REGISTERS ( LAND REGISTERS ) AND NOT MERELY OF A CHARGE RELATING IN GENERAL TERMS TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ALREADY BUILT .
16 THAT INTERPRETATION CANNOT BE UPHELD . THE COMMISSION DECISION OF 15 JULY 1980 MERELY INTERPRETS AND DEFINES ARTICLE 7 ( 3 ) OF ANNEX VII WHICH REFERS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF AN OFFICIAL ' S PLACE OF ORIGIN TO THE PLACE WHERE HIS CENTRE OF INTERESTS IS SITUATED . NEITHER ARTICLE 7 ( 3 ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS NOR THE COMMISSION DECISION OF 15 JULY 1980 RULES OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT PERMANENT HERITABLE INTERESTS OTHER THAN A RIGHT IN REM RECORDED IN PUBLIC REGISTERS MAY ALSO SERVE AS CRITERIA FOR THE DETERMINATION OF AN OFFICIAL ' S CENTRE OF INTERESTS .
17 IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT HAS ESTABLISHED THAT CERTAIN HERITABLE INTERESTS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ALREADY BUILT ARE ACTUALLY VESTED IN HER . IN 1975 , BY COMMON AGREEMENT WITH HER HUSBAND , SHE ENLARGED AND EQUIPPED THE BUILDING IN ISCHIA WHICH THE COUPLE REGARD AS THEIR MARITAL AND FAMILY RESIDENCE . THAT WORK WAS FINANCED BY A LOAN CONTRACTED BY HUSBAND AND WIFE UNDER THE SYSTEM OF COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY , WHICH , ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT , WHOSE VERSION OF THE FACTS HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE COMMISSION , CONFERS ON THE MARRIED COUPLE A CHARGE OVER THE BUILDING IN QUESTION . FURTHERMORE , THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT UNDER ITALIAN LAW SHE IS ENTITLED IN THE FIRST PLACE TO OBJECT TO THE SALE