1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED ON 16 DECEMBER 1968, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THE ANNULMENT OF " THE DEFENDANT'S DECISION NOTIFIED TO THE APPLICANT AS A SCHEDULE TO THE MEMORANDUM DATED 16 SEPTEMBER 1968 SIGNED BY MR C . REICHLING, DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION, IN THE FORM OF AN EXPLANATORY TABLE OF THE APPLICANT'S RIGHTS AS FROM THE TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICE, IN SO FAR AS IT ENVISAGES THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE FORMER VERSION OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND, IN THAT EVENT, APPLIES A COEFFICIENT REDUCTION TO THE PENSION DUE TO THE APPLICANT AND REFUSES HIM THE DEPENDENT CHILD ALLOWANCE ".
2 THE DEFENDANT HAS RAISED THE QUESTION OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPLANATORY TABLE IN DISPUTE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DECISION .
3 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 91(1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION IN ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE COMMUNITIES AND ANY PERSON TO WHOM THOSE STAFF REGULATIONS APPLY REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF A MEASURE ADVERSELY AFFECTING SUCH PERSON .
4 ONLY MEASURES CAPABLE OF DIRECTLY AFFECTING A SPECIFIC LEGAL SITUATION MAY BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING AN ADVERSE EFFECT .
5 THE CONTESTED COMMUNICATION HAS THE OBJECT NEITHER OF DETERMINING THE APPLICANT'S RIGHTS IN A SPECIFIC LEGAL SITUATION NOR OF BINDING THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WITH REGARD TO DETERMINING THOSE RIGHTS IN THE FUTURE .
6 IN FACT, IN AN OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE " STAFF COURIER " OF 16 APRIL 1968, THE COMMISSION RECALLED THAT THE DATA PROVIDED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PERSONS CONCERNED IN THE APPLICATION OF REGULATION NO 259/68 WERE FOR THE PURPOSES OF INFORMATION AND NOT BINDING ON THE COMMISSION .
7 CONSEQUENTLY INFORMATION SUCH AS THAT AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED AS HAVING AN EFFECT ADVERSE OR OTHERWISE ON THE LEGAL POSITION OF OFFICIALS .
8 THE APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT IS THUS INADMISSIBLE .
9 IN HIS APPLICATION THE APPLICANT SECONDLY ASKS THE COURT, " IN EXERCISE OF ITS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION TO RULE THAT IN THE EVENT OF HIS OPTING FOR ARTICLE 34 OF THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS, THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 5(7 ) AND ( 8 ) OF REGULATION NO 259/68 WILL ALSO BE APPLICABLE ".
10 THE FIRST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 91(1 ) GOVERNS THE SECOND SO THAT THIS PROVISION ONLY CONFERS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ON THE COURT WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST SENTENCE .
11 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT IPSO FACTO THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO GIVE THE RULING REQUESTED .
12 MOREOVER ARTICLE 7, AS OPPOSED TO OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATION RELATING TO OPTIONS, DOES NOT LIMIT TO ANY PERIOD THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT IN QUESTION SO THAT THE APPLICANT RETAINS THE POWER OF POSTPONING HIS CHOICE UNTIL A LATER DATE .
13 CONSEQUENTLY THE REQUEST FOR A RULING IS INADMISSIBLE .
14 THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .