1 . UNDER THE TERMS OF THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD SENTENCES OF ARTICLE 15(A ) OF THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE ECSC OF 1 JULY 1956, IN THE VERSION ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF CHAIRMEN ON 21 NOVEMBER 1960, ' THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN RESPECT OF REMOVAL OF FURNITURE AND PERSONAL EFFECTS...SHALL BE REIMBURSED...TO OFFICIALS . SUCH REIMBURSEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF AN ESTIMATE APPROVED IN ADVANCE . NOT LESS THAN TWO ESTIMATES SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT OF THE INSTITUTION '. IT IS AGREED THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT SUBMIT AN ESTIMATE IN ADVANCE, SO THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE THE APPROVAL PROVIDED FOR IN THE PROVISION QUOTED ABOVE . CONSEQUENTLY THE DISPUTE RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER IN SUCH CASES THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED SIMPLY LOSES HIS RIGHTS .
2 . EXAMINATION OF THE DIFFERENT MISSIONS THE EXAMINATION OF THESE MISSIONS WILL BE BASED ON THE DETAILED INFORMATION APPEARING IN A STATEMENT OF THE MISSIONS IN QUESTION, WHICH IS DEALT WITH IN POINT ( A ) OF THE REPLY OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF 31 OCTOBER 1963 TO THE WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF THE COURT AND WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DISPUTED ( SEE BELOW : ' STATEMENT '). ACCORDING TO THIS STATEMENT, THE MISSIONS WHICH MUST BE EXAMINED ARE THOSE APPEARING UNDER NOS 1, 5 TO 16, 18 AND 19, AND ANOTHER MISSION CARRIED OUT FROM 2 TO 6 OR 7 APRIL 1962 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE MISSIONS MENTIONED UNDER NOS 2, 3 AND 4 SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS THEY NO LONGER FORM PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISPUTE FOR THE REASONS SET OUT UNDER 1(A ) ABOVE . THE SAME OBTAINS FOR MISSION NO 17, FOR WHICH THE SUM CLAIMED BY THE APPLICANT AND THAT TENDERED OR PAID BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY AGREE . A - MISSIONS RELATING TO NUMBERS 1 AND 5 TO 9 OF THE STATEMENT ( CLAIM FOR 4615 BELGIAN FRANCS, REDUCED TO 4246 BELGIAN FRANCS IN THE REPLY ) ( A ) THESE MISSIONS MUST BE EXAMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLES 17(D ) AND 13(D ) OF THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE ECSC, IN ITS ORIGINAL VERSION . THE LATTER PROVISION LAYS DOWN IN PARTICULAR : ' IF THE CALCULATIONS CANNOT BE EFFECTED ON THAT BASIS, A SPECIAL DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY SHALL FIX THE MEANS OF REIMBURSEMENT '. THE ' OPINION ' OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF 3 MAY 1957, APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, MAY BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH A SPECIAL DECISION . THAT ' OPINION ' WHICH GOVERNS THE REIMBURSEMENT OF MISSION EXPENSES FOR OFFICIALS IN THE INSPECTION GROUP ( LATER NAMED ' INSPECTION DIRECTORATE '), STATES IN PARTICULAR : P.71 ' THE ADMINISTRATION IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE NATURE OF THESE MISSIONS IN FACT GENERALLY REQUIRES CONSIDERABLE TRAVEL ABOUT A CENTRAL POINT IN THE SAME INDUSTRIAL REGION, FOR WHICH THE USE OF A CAR WOULD PROVE MOST USEFUL . IT CONSIDERS HOWEVER THAT THE USE OF THE OFFICIAL'S OWN CAR, FOR THE OUTWARD AND RETURN JOURNEY TO THE PRINCIPAL CENTRE AT WHICH THE MISSION IS TO BE PERFORMED, IS NOT, IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES, IN THE DIRECT INTEREST OF THE SERVICE '. IT PROVIDES FURTHERMORE THAT JOURNEYS BETWEEN THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE CENTRE AT WHICH THE MISSION IS TO BE PERFORMED SHALL BE REIMBURSED ON THE BASIS OF THE RAIL FARE, WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF OTHER JOURNEYS IT IS PROVIDED THAT HIRED CARS OR PRIVATE CARS SHALL BE USED (' WITH PRIOR AUTHORIZATION '). IN THIS LAST CASE, THE RATE OF REIMBURSEMENT TO THE OFFICIAL IS 3 BELGIAN FRANCS FOR EACH KILOMETRE ACTUALLY COVERED . FINALLY, THE OPINION LAYS DOWN THAT, ' IT IS PARTICULARLY STRESSED THAT...THE USE OF A PRIVATE CAR INVOLVING PAYMENT AT THE RATE OF 3 BELGIAN FRANCS PER KILOMETRE MUST BE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED '. ( B ) IT IS TRUE THAT THESE PROVISIONS DO NOT SHOW CLEARLY WHETHER THE GRANTING OF A RATE PER KILOMETRE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED IPSO JURE WHEN THE TRAVEL ORDER DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY OUTWARD AND RETURN JOURNEY IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE ' MISSION CENTRE ', BUT ONLY FOR JOURNEYS BETWEEN THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND ONE OR MORE LARGE TOWNS WITH GOOD RAIL CONNEXIONS . HOWEVER SUCH PROVISIONS MUST CERTAINLY BE INTERPRETED AS AUTHORIZING THE REIMBURSEMENT AT THE RATE PER KILOMETRE, IN SUCH CASES, ONLY IN SPECIAL SITUATIONS AND ON THE BASIS OF DETAILED EVIDENCE . THAT INTERPRETATION ALSO ARISES FROM THE FACT THAT THE STAFF REGULATIONS, WHICH ONLY PROVIDE BY WAY OF EXCEPTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT ON ANY BASIS OTHER THAN THAT OF THE RAIL FARE, TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE SAID ' OPINION '. THE MISSIONS APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT UNDER NOS 1, 7, 8 AND 9 INVOLVE EXCLUSIVELY TRAVEL BETWEEN THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT ( LUXEMBOURG ) AND BRUSSELS . FROM THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED THE COURT CANNOT FIND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT THE USE OF A PRIVATE CAR WAS ' IN THE DIRECT INTEREST OF THE SERVICE '. ON THE CONTRARY, THE IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR OF THE APPLICANT, MR BURGERT, STATED, IN CERTAIN OF THE CASES MENTIONED, THAT REIMBURSEMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE RAIL FARE WAS EQUITABLE . P.72 THE FACT THAT, IN OTHER CASES, HE SPECIFIED IN TRAVEL ORDERS ' PRIVATE CAR, 3 BELGIAN FRANCS PER KILOMETRE ', OR APPROVED STATEMENTS OF THIS KIND, CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE . HAVING REGARD TO THE FOREGOING, THE CLAIMS OF THE APPLICANT RELATING TO THESE MISSIONS ARE UNFOUNDED . ( C ) THE MISSIONS LISTED UNDER NOS 5 AND 6 OF THE STATEMENT RELATED TO AN OUTWARD AND RETURN JOURNEY BETWEEN THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT ( LUXEMBOURG ) AND BRUSSELS AND, MOREOVER, OUTWARD AND RETURN JOURNEYS BETWEEN BRUSSELS AND THE HAGUE AND JOURNEYS WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL REGIONS OF WHICH BRUSSELS IS THE CENTRE . THE DISPUTE RELATES EXCLUSIVELY TO THE OUTWARD AND RETURN JOURNEYS BETWEEN BRUSSELS AND THE HAGUE, AS THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS REIMBURSED THE OTHER JOURNEYS AT THE RATE PER KILOMETRE . IT IS NECESSARY, HOWEVER, TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE CLAIMS OF THE APPLICANT ARE FOUNDED, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ILLOGICAL, FOR A GIVEN MISSION, TO REIMBURSE ONE PART OF THE EXPENSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RAIL FARE AND ANOTHER ON THE BASIS OF THE RATE PER KILOMETRE . SUCH IS NOT THE CASE . HOWEVER, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SUMS REIMBURSED COVER THE EXPENSES NORMALLY OCCASIONED BY THE USE OF A PRIVATE CAR, WITHIN THE LIMITS OBJECTIVELY ESTABLISHED BY THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS, CAN ONLY BE ASKED WITH REGARD TO THE USE OF THIS MEANS OF TRANSPORT WITHIN THE LIMITS AUTHORIZED AS CORRESPONDING TO THE INTEREST OF THE SERVICE . THE JOURNEY BETWEEN BRUSSELS AND THE HAGUE WAS RIGHTLY NOT COVERED BY REIMBURSEMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE RATE PER KILOMETRE, BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE INTEREST OF THE SERVICE WOULD HAVE BEEN EQUALLY WELL SATISFIED BY THE USE ON THAT JOURNEY OF A LESS EXPENSIVE MEANS OF TRANSPORT, SUCH AS RAIL . IF THE APPLICANT PREFERRED ALWAYS TO USE HIS PRIVATE CAR FOR REASONS OF HIS OWN CONVENIENCE, HE WAS FREE TO DO SO . HE OUGHT HOWEVER TO HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, IN HIS ESTIMATE OF THE EXPENSES, THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL OF THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE TRAVEL EXPENSES RESULTED FROM THE APPLICATION OF TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF CALCULATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORIZATION RECEIVED . CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICANT'S CLAIM WITH REGARD TO THESE MISSIONS IS ALSO UNFOUNDED . P.73 HAVING REGARD TO THE FOREGOING, THE CLAIM RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF THE SUM OF 4246 BELGIAN FRANCS MUST BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF CALCULATING THE SUM TO WHICH THIS AMOUNT WOULD BE REDUCED ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT'S DECLARATION SET OUT AT 1(A ) ABOVE . B - MISSIONS RELATING TO NOS 10 TO 13 OF THE STATEMENT ( CLAIM FOR 2918 BELGIAN FRANCS, INCREASED TO 2968 BELGIAN FRANCS IN THE REPLY ) ( A ) THE HIGH AUTHORITY STATES THAT, FROM ITS POINT OF VIEW, THE APPLICANT CAN ONLY CLAIM THE AMOUNT OF 2920 BELGIAN FRANCS, SINCE THE DISTANCES COVERED MUST BE CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OFFICIAL ROAD MAPS . ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT'S DECLARATION SET OUT AT 1(A ) ABOVE, SUCH QUESTIONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DISPUTE . CONSEQUENTLY, IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REDUCED THE SUM CLAIMED TO 2920 BELGIAN FRANCS . ( B ) THERE ARE AT ISSUE FOUR DOUBLE JOURNEYS BETWEEN LUXEMBOURG AND BRUSSELS FOR WHICH THE APPLICANT WAS OBLIGED TO USE HIS PRIVATE CAR BECAUSE OF THE STRIKE ON THE BELGIAN RAILWAYS . THE HIGH AUTHORITY STATES IN PARTICULAR THAT THE USE OF A PRIVATE CAR HAS NO CAUSAL CONNEXION WITH THE STRIKE, SINCE THE APPLICANT HABITUALLY UNDERTOOK MOST OF HIS JOURNEYS ON MISSION BY CAR . THAT OBJECTION DISREGARDS THAT FACT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE A CAUSAL CONNEXION EXISTED BETWEEN THE STRIKE AND THE NECESSITY OF USING THE PRIVATE CAR . ON OTHER ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, THE ARGUMENT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY MUST BE DISMISSED . IN THIS CASE THE OBLIGATION TO REIMBURSE MUST BE EXAMINED, ON THE BASIS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 17(D ) OF THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE ECSC IN THE VERSION ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF CHAIRMEN ON 21 NOVEMBER 1960 . THAT PROVISION STIPULATES : ' IN THE CASE OF AN OFFICIAL TRAVELLING REGULARLY ON MISSION IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, HOWEVER, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY MAY DECIDE TO GRANT THAT OFFICIAL AN ALLOWANCE PER KILOMETRE COVERED INSTEAD OF REIMBURSEMENT OF RAIL FARES, IF THE USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES ON THE NORMAL BASIS INVOLVE DEFINITE DISADVANTAGES '. P.74 AS THE HIGH AUTHORITY INDIRECTLY ADMITS IN THE SAID ' OPINION ' OF 3 MAY 1957, THE MEMBERS OF THE INSPECTION DIRECTORATE HAD TO ' TRAVEL REGULARLY ON MISSION IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES '. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO USE THE RAILWAY . NOR DID THE HIGH AUTHORITY CLAIM THAT THE INTEREST OF THE SERVICE REQUIRED THE USE OF AN AEROPLANE INSTEAD OF PRIVATE CARS . THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE RAIL FARE ONLY, THAT IS TO SAY, 578 BELGIAN FRANCS FOR A JOURNEY OF 440 KILOMETRES, BEING 1.31 BELGIAN FRANCS PER KILOMETRE COVERED, GIVES RISE TO ' DEFINITE DISADVANTAGES ', SINCE THAT SUM PLAINLY COULD NOT COVER THE EXPENSES WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD IN FACT INCURRED . ALL EXPENSES DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INCURRED BY THE POSSESSION AND USE OF A MOTOR CAR, INCLUDING DEPRECIATION, MUST BE CONSIDERED AS TRAVEL EXPENSES . IT IS TRUE THAT THE SAID ARTICLE 17(D ) ONLY PROVIDES THAT THE IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR ' MAY ' IN SUCH CASES ORDER REIMBURSEMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE RATE PER KILOMETRE . AT FIRST SIGHT, IT MAY APPEAR DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE ' OPINION ' OF 3 MAY 1957 IS TO BE CONSIDERED A PRIORI AS SUCH A PROVISION, SINCE IT ONLY REFERS TO MISSIONS WHICH ALSO REQUIRE THE USE OF CARS IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF A MISSION CENTRE . HOWEVER, THE INTRODUCTION TO THE ' OPINION ' GIVES GROUNDS FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE AMOUNT TO BE REIMBURSED MUST NOT BE LESS THAN THE EXPENSES ACTUALLY INCURRED . THE ' OPINION ' SHOULD THUS BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THAT PRINCIPLE . APART FROM THE RAIL FARE, THE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE ONLY PROVIDED, AS THE BASIS OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR CASES INVOLVING THE USE OF A PRIVATE CAR, THE RATE OF 3 BELGIAN FRANCS FOR EACH KILOMETRE COVERED BY CAR . IT EMERGES FROM THESE FACTORS THAT THE APPLICANT'S CLAIM RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF 2920 BELGIAN FRANCS IS WELL FOUNDED . MOREOVER, THE HIGH AUTHORITY OWES THE APPLICANT INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 4.5 PER CENT FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS MADE UP TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT . C - JOURNEYS ON MISSION RELATING TO NOS 14, 15 AND 16 OF THE STATEMENT ( CLAIM FOR 16009 BELGIAN FRANCS, REDUCED TO 3645 BFRS IN THE REPLY ) ( A ) IN ITS STATEMENT OF DEFENCE, THE HIGH AUTHORITY RECOGNIZED THE ORIGINAL CLAIM OF THE APPLICANT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF 12364 BELGIAN FRANCS TO BE WELL FOUNDED . P.75 CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICANT REDUCED THE SUM IN DISPUTE TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 16009 AND 12364 BELGIAN FRANCS, THAT IS, 3645 BELGIAN FRANCS . WITH REGARD TO THE INTEREST DUE ON THE SUM OF 12364 BELGIAN FRANCS, THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS STATED THAT IT IS PREPARED TO PAY IT ONLY UNTIL THE DATE ON WHICH THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE WAS SERVED ON THE APPLICANT . IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW, HOWEVER, THIS PERIOD MUST RUN UNTIL THE SUM DUE HAS IN FACT BEEN PAID . ( B ) WITH REGARD TO THE JOURNEY APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT UNDER NO 16, THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES TURNS IN ADDITION ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COST OF THE ' RETURN JOURNEY ' FROM BRUSSELS TO LUXEMBOURG SHOULD BE REIMBURSED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS IN THE MEANTIME BEEN INFORMED OF HIS TRANSFER TO BRUSSELS . ACCORDING TO THE DECLARATION OF THE APPLICANT REPRODUCED AT 1(A ) ABOVE, HOWEVER, IT MAY BE CONCLUDED THAT THIS POINT IS NO LONGER IN DISPUTE BEFORE THE COURT . ( C ) ALL THE JOURNEYS ON MISSION IN QUESTION RELATE TO TRAVEL BETWEEN LUXEMBOURG AND BRUSSELS AND BETWEEN BRUSSELS AND DIFFERENT INDUSTRIAL REGIONS . THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS PAID ONLY FOR THESE LATTER JOURNEYS ON THE BASIS OF THE RATE PER KILOMETRE . THESE JOURNEYS MUST BE EXAMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 17(D ) OF THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE ECSC AND IN PARTICULAR THE LAST SENTENCE, QUOTED AT B ABOVE, TOGETHER WITH THE ' OPINION ' OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF 20 FEBRUARY 1961, APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY . THAT ' OPINION ': - FIXES THE RATE PER KILOMETRE AT 3 BELGIAN FRANCS; - PROVIDES ' THAT THIS TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT MAY BE USED ONLY IN CONNEXION WITH JOURNEYS WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND AT THE RESPONSIBILIY OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE INSPECTION DIRECTORATE TO BE IMPOSSIBLE TO CARRY OUT UNDER SATISFACTORY CONDITIONS BY MEANS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT ( REASONS MUST BE STATED ON THE TRAVEL ORDER ) AND IN CONNEXION WITH WHICH IT IS FOUND THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ON THE NORMAL BASIS WOULD BE CLEARLY INSUFFICIENT ( SUBSEQUENT CHECK ON THE BASIS OF A DETAILED REASONED STATEMENT OF THE DISTANCE COVERED ) '. ( D ) CONSEQUENTLY, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR REIMBURSEMENT AT THE RATE PER KILOMETRE WAS THE FINDING THAT REIMBURSEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RAIL FARE CLEARLY COVERED ONLY A PART OF THE ACTUAL MISSION EXPENSES . THAT FINDING HAD TO BE MADE BY THE GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION IN ORDER TO AVOID DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN THE OFFICIALS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY . FOR THE REASONS STATED AT A(C ) ABOVE, THE CONDITION IN QUESTION WAS NOT SATISFIED BY REASON OF THE FACT ALONE THAT THE AMOUNT REIMBURSED FOR EACH KILOMETRE COVERED WAS LESS THAN 3 BELGIAN FRANCS . WITH REGARD TO THE JOURNEYS ON MISSION APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT UNDER NOS 14 AND 16, A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF KILOMETRES COVERED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT ACTUALLY REIMBURSED DOES NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF MORE DETAILED INFORMATION, GIVE GROUNDS FOR DECLARING THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT WAS ' CLEARLY INSUFFICIENT '. THEREFORE THE APPLICANT'S CLAIM ON THIS POINT IS UNFOUNDED . ( E ) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PROVISIONS, ANOTHER CONDITION FOR REIMBURSEMENT AT THE RATE PER KILOMETRE WAS THAT THE IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR OF THE SERVANT CONCERNED CERTIFIES WITH REASONS ON THE TRAVEL ORDER THE NEED, FOR REASONS OF SERVICE, TO USE A PRIVATE CAR . WITH REGARD TO THE ENTRY APPEARING IN NO 15 OF THE STATEMENT, THE TRAVEL ORDER BEARS THE FOLLOWING REMARK, ' MR LEPAPE MUST USE HIS CAR ON THE BASIS OF 3 BELGIAN FRANCS PER KILOMETRE TO RETAIN FULL FREEDOM TO VISIT COLLERIES TO BE SELECTED '. THAT REMARK IS ONLY COVERED BY THE SIGNATURE OF THE APPLICANT ALONE, SINCE THE SIGNATURE OF THE IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR, MR BURGERT, IS PLACED ABOVE THE WORDING OF THE TRAVEL ORDER . IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THIS MANNER OF COMPLETING THE TRAVEL ORDER DOES NOT FULFIL THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN IN THE SAID ' OPINION '. P.77 IN FACT, IN ORDER TO AVOID ALL ABUSE, VERY STRICT CONDITIONS OF FORM AND SUBSTANCE MUST BE IMPOSED FOR DECLARATIONS INTENDED TO ESTABLISH THE RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT AT THE RATE PER KILOMETRE - AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH THE REGULATIONS EXPRESSLY DESCRIBE AS AN EXCEPTION . FOR THIS REASON, THE APPLICANT'S CLAIM ON THIS POINT IS UNFOUNDED . HAVING REGARD TO THE FOREGOING, THE CLAIM RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF A SUM OF 3645 BELGIAN FRANCS MUST BE DISMISSED . D - JOURNEYS ON MISSION RELATING TO NOS 18 AND 19 OF THE STATEMENT; JOURNEY ON MISSION FROM 2 TO 6 ( OR 7 ) APRIL 1962 ( CLAIM FOR 2943 BELGIAN FRANCS, REDUCED TO 2942 BELGIAN FRANCS ) THESE JOURNEYS MUST BE EXAMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAME PROVISION AS THE JOURNEYS ON MISSION DISCUSSED AT C ABOVE . WITH REGARD TO THE JOURNEY ON MISSION OF 2 TO 6 ( OR 7 ) APRIL 1962, HOWEVER, THE RELEVANT PROVISION IS THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 12(4 ) IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 12(1 ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE PRESENT STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE ECSC OF 1 JANUARY 1962 . ALL THE JOURNEYS IN QUESTION WERE UNDERTAKEN WITH BRUSSELS, THE APPLICANT'S NEW PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, AS THE POINT OF DEPARTURE . THE DESTINATIONS WERE ANTWERP, ROTTERDAM, LUXEMBOURG AND LIEGE, TOGETHER WITH THE INDUSTRIAL REGION IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF LIEGE . THE IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR OF THE APPLICANT ENTERED ON THE TRAVEL ORDERS FOR THE FIRST TWO JOURNEYS : ' MR LEPAPE IS AUTHORIZED TO USE HIS PRIVATE CAR AND IS ENTITLED TO A KILOMETRE ALLOWANCE OF 3 BELGIAN FRANCS PER KILOMETRE '. THE TRAVEL ORDER PROVIDED FOR THE THIRD JOURNEY ON MISSION CONTAINS ONLY THE ENTRY INITIALLED BY THE IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR ' OWN CAR, 3 BELGIAN FRANCS PER KILOMETRE '. CONTRARY TO THE ' OPINION ' OF 20 FEBRUARY 1961, THESE ENTRIES DO NOT ESTABLISH THE NEED TO USE A PRIVATE CAR . IN THIS INSTANCE THAT DEFECT IS THE MORE SERIOUS, SINCE THERE ARE VERY GOOD RAIL CONNEXIONS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS STATIONS ON THE JOURNEY IN QUESTION . IN THIS RESPECT AN EXCEPTION COULD BE MADE AT MOST FOR THE JOURNEYS WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL REGION AROUND LIEGE . HOWEVER, IT APPEARS WITH REGARD TO THIS FROM THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT THEY COVER ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE TOTAL JOURNEYS MADE . CONSEQUENTLY THE CLAIM SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EXAMINATION, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF CALCULATING THE SUM TO WHICH IT WOULD BE REDUCED ON THE BASIS OF THE DECLARATION BY THE APPLICANT SET OUT AT 1(A ) ABOVE .