1 THE APPLICANT, BY AN APPEAL ENTERED IN THE COURT REGISTRY ON 2 OCTOBER 1972, ASKS FOR ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL OF 30 JUNE 1972, WHICH REJECTS HER COMPLAINT OF 7 JUNE 1972 AGAINST THE DECISION OF 10 MARCH 1972, REFUSING TO WAIVE RECOVERY OF THE EDUCATION ALLOWANCES OVERPAID FOLLOWING HER CHILDREN' S CHANGE OF SCHOOL . ADMISSIBILITY
2 THE COUNCIL HAS RAISED A PLEA OF INADMISSIBILITY BY REASON OF THE APPEAL BEING OUT OF TIME . THE DECISION TO RECOVER THE OVERPAYMENT WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN AS AT 3 JANUARY 1972 . THE APPLICANT' S NOTE OF 19 JANUARY 1972 WAS A COMPLAINT AGAINST THIS DECISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL REJECTED THIS COMPLAINT ON 10 MARCH 1972 AND AN APPLICATION AGAINST THIS DECISION SHOULD HAVE BEEN LODGED WITHIN THREE MONTHS .
3 UNDER ARTICLE 91 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, IN THE FORM THEN IN FORCE, APPEALS MUST BE MADE WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE TIME OF NOTIFICATION OF THE DISPUTED DECISION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED . THE TERM " NOTIFICATION ... TO THE PERSON CONCERNED " IN ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS CONTEMPLATES WRITTEN COMMUNICATION TO THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 25 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IN CASE OF ANY DECISION RELATING TO A SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL .
4 THE DEFENCE ALLEGES THAT THE DECISION OBJECTED TO IN THE APPEAL IS CONSTITUTED BY THE DOCUMENT OF 3 JANUARY 1972 AND THAT THE LATTER HAD BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT . THE SLIP ADJUSTING HER SALARY ADDRESSED TO THE APPLICANT ON 15 JANUARY 1972 CONSTITUTED AT LEAST A COMMUNICATION TO HER OF THE DECISION TAKEN ON 3 JANUARY, 1972 .
5 EVEN IF THE APPLICANT HAD RECEIVED THESE DOCUMENTS - WHICH SHE DISPUTES - THEY DO NOT EXPLICITLY SHOW THAT A DECISION HAD BEEN TAKEN UNDER ARTICLE 85 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, AS THEY WERE MERELY ACCOUNTING SLIPS .
6 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ONLY DECISION TAKEN EXPRESSLY UNDER THIS PROVISION IS CONTAINED IN THE LETTER DATED 10 MARCH 1972 .
7 THE APPLICANT MADE A COMPLAINT AGAINST THIS DECISION TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND SHE HAS BROUGHT THE PRESENT APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS AGAINST THE EXPRESS REJECTION OF THIS COMPLAINT . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE APPLICATION IS ADMISSIBLE . MERITS
8 ARTICLE 85 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS PROVIDES TWO CONDITIONS IN WHICH A SUM OVERPAID MAY BE RECOVERED .
9 IN THE FIRST CASE, THE OVERPAYMENT MAY BE RECOVERED IF THE RECIPIENT WAS AWARE THAT THERE WAS NO DUE REASON FOR THE PAYMENT . THIS CONDITION REQUIRES ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE IRREGULAR NATURE OF THE PAYMENT .
10 IN THE SECOND CASE, ANY SUM OVERPAID MAY BE RECOVERED IF THE FACT OF THE OVERPAYMENT WAS PATENTLY SUCH THAT THE RECIPIENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNAWARE OF IT .
11 IT FOLLOWS THAT IF THE RECIPIENT DENIES HAVING BEEN AWARE OF IT AND IF THERE IS NO PROOF OF ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE IRREGULARITY OF THE PAYMENT, THEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE MUST BE EXAMINED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE IRREGULARITY OF THE PAYMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLAIN TO SEE .
12 UNDER ARTICLE 8 OF THE GENERAL IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF THE EDUCATION ALLOWANCE " THE EMPLOYEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING ANY CHANGE INVOLVING THE WITHDRAWAL OR REDUCTION OF THE EDUCATION ALLOWANCE ". MOREOVER THE APPLICANT HAD SIGNED AN UNDERTAKING IN THIS SENCE AT THE TIME OF HER REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EDUCATION COSTS .
13 THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE CHANGE OF SCHOOL BY HER TWO ELDER CHILDREN, FROM GERMANY TO THE PLACE WHERE THE FAMILY HOME WAS SITUATED, INVOLVED A REDUCTION OF THE EDUCATION ALLOWANCE .
14 NOT UNTIL 15 JANUARY 1971 DID SHE NOTIFY HER INSTITUTION OF THE CHANGE OF SCHOOL WHICH HAD TAKEN PLACE FROM 1 SEPTEMBER 1970 . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES SHE IS HERSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IRREGULARITY IN THE RATE AT WHICH THE EDUCATION ALLOWANCE WAS PAID TO HER FOR THE LAST FOUR MONTHS OF THE YEAR 1970 .
15 SINCE, EVEN AFTER THIS NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF SCHOOL, SHE CONTINUED TO RECEIVE AS BEFORE THE SAME EDUCATION ALLOWANCE FOR THE TWO ELDER CHILDREN, THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE PERPETUATION OF THE ERROR .
16 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FACT OF OVERPAYMENT WAS PATENTLY SUCH THAT THE APPLICANT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNAWARE OF IT . THE COUNCIL THEREFORE PROPERLY REQUIRED RECOVERY OF THE OVERPAYMENT .