1 THE APPLICATION, BASED UPON ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, SEEKS ON THE ONE HAND THE ANNULMENT OF TWO DECISIONS DATED 3 OCTOBER AND 11 NOVEMBER 1968 COMMUNICATING TO THE APPLICANT AND AFTERWARDS CONFIRMING THAT THE ALLOWANCE FOR A DEPENDENT PERSON PROVIDED FOR, AS FAR AS SHE IS CONCERNED, BY ARTICLE 5 OF THE GENERAL REGULATIONS OF THE ECSC WHICH ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 JULY 1956 AND WERE CONTINUED BY ARTICLE 96 OF THE ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS AND ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 259/68, WAS WITHDRAWN FROM HER, AND ON THE OTHER HAND A DECLARATION THAT THIS ALLOWANCE : " MUST CONTINUE TO BE PAID TO THE APPLICANT IN RESPECT OF HER MOTHER ".
2 THE APPLICANT HAS BENEFITTED SINCE 1954 FROM THE ABOVEMENTIONED ALLOWANCE, WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION GRANTED HER SO LONG AS THE CONDITIONS FOR ITS PAYMENT WERE FULFILLED; AN ANNUAL CHECK ON THIS WAS TO BE KEPT BY THE ADMINISTRATION .
3 THESE CONDITIONS ARE LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 5(C ) OF THE GENERAL REGULATIONS MENTIONED ABOVE UNDER WHICH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE DEPENDENT PERSON MUST INVOLVE THE SERVANT CONCERNED IN HEAVY EXPENDITURE .
4 THE DEFENDANT CONSIDERED THAT, HAVING REGARD TO THE INCOME OF THE APPLICANT, THIS EXPENDITURE COULD NO LONGER BE REGARDED AS SUFFICIENTLY HEAVY TO JUSTIFY THE CONTINUANCE OF THE ALLOWANCE AND WITHDREW IT BY THE DECISION OF 3 OCTOBER 1968 .
5 UPON AN APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS AND AFTER A FRESH EXAMINATION OF HER PERSONAL POSITION THE ALLOWANCE WAS REINSTATED BY A DECISION OF 13 MARCH 1969 " FOR A FURTHER YEAR ".
6 NEVERTHELESS BY AN EXPLANATORY NOTE OF 6 JUNE 1969 THE DEFENDANT EXPLAINED THAT THE CLAUSE MENTIONING A TIME IN RELATION TO THE GRANT OF AN ALLOWANCE DID NOT SIGNIFY THAT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THIS PERIOD THE GRANT WOULD NOT BE CONTINUED, BUT ONLY THAT AT SUCH TIME THERE WOULD BE A FRESH EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICANT'S POSITION IN ORDER TO CHECK WHETHER THE CONDITIONS FOR PAYMENT WERE STILL FULFILLED .
7 THE APPLICANT THUS FOUND HERSELF REINSTATED IN LAW IN THE SAME SITUATION IN WHICH SHE HAD BEEN BEFORE THE DISPUTED DECISIONS WERE TAKEN .
8 THE APPLICATION WHICH SEEKS THE ANNULMENT OF THE DISPUTED DECISIONS AND THE CONTINUATION OF THE ALLOWANCE HAS BECOME WITHOUT PURPOSE, SINCE THE DISPUTED DECISIONS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN AND THE ALLOWANCE TO THE APPLICANT IS BEING CONTINUED ON THE SAME CONDITIONS AS BEFORE .
9 IT MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED AS HAVING BECOME INADMISSIBLE FOR LACK OF PURPOSE .