1 BY TWO APPLICATIONS DATED 12 APRIL 1979 THE APPLICANTS , MRS LISELOTTE BOIZARD NEE HERBER , AND MISS MARTINE BOIZARD , RESPECTIVELY THE WIDOW AND DAUGHTER OF GEORGES BOIZARD , A COMMISSION OFFICIAL WHO DIED ON 24 NOVEMBER 1972 , BROUGHT ACTIONS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE COMMISSION ' S DECISION OF 1 JUNE 1978 BY WHICH : ' ' ARTICLE 1 WITH EFFECT FROM 1 JUNE 1978 AND UNTIL AN AMOUNT OF BFR 1 066 256 TO BE REPAID IN THIS WAY HAS BEEN RECOVERED THE NET MONTHLY PAYMENTS OF THE PENSION FALLING DUE TO MRS BOIZARD , THE WIDOW OF GEORGES BOIZARD , AND AMOUNTING AT PRESENT TO BFR 29 604 SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A DEDUCTION OF BFR 8 000 . THAT DEDUCTION SHALL BE INDEXED AND SHALL VARY AUTOMATICALLY BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE INCREASE AS THE GROSS AMOUNT OF THE MONTHLY PENSION BEFORE THE DEDUCTION . ARTICLE 2 WITH EFFECT FROM 1 JUNE 1978 AND UNTIL AN AMOUNT OF BFR 574 671 TO BE REPAID IN THIS WAY HAS BEEN RECOVERED THE NET MONTHLY PAYMENTS OF THE PENSION FALLING DUE TO MARTINE BOIZARD AND AMOUNTING AT PRESENT TO BFR 14 953 SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A DEDUCTION OF BFR 5 000 . THAT DEDUCTION SHALL BE INDEXED AND SHALL VARY AUTOMATICALLY BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE INCREASE AS THE GROSS AMOUNT OF THE MONTHLY PENSION BEFORE THE DEDUCTION . ' ' THE APPLICANTS FURTHER SEEK THE ANNULMENT SO FAR AS NECESSARY OF THE EXPRESS REJECTION OF THEIR COMPLAINTS DATED 19 JANUARY 1979 AND AN ORDER THAT THE COMMISSION PAY THEM THE SUMS DEDUCTED TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON .
2 AS THE TWO CASES ARE RELATED THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ) BY ORDER OF 30 MAY 1979 JOINED THEM FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PROCEDURE AND THE JUDGMENT .
3 THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE DISPUTE ARE THE FOLLOWING . ON 21 NOVEMBER 1972 THE CAR WHICH MR BOIZARD WAS DRIVING WAS IN A COLLISION WITH A VEHICLE WHICH DID NOT GIVE WAY TO HIM WHEN HE WAS APPROACHING FROM THE RIGHT . MR BOIZARD DIED THREE DAYS LATER . PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST THE OTHER DRIVER IN THE TRIBUNAL CORRECTIONNEL ( CRIMINAL COURT ), BRUSSELS . THE APPLICANTS APPEARED AS ' ' PARTIES CIVILES ' ' BEFORE THE COURT AND THE ACCUSED AND HIS INSURER WERE DECLARED LIABLE AND ORDERED BY JUDGMENT OF 29 NOVEMBER 1973 TO PAY THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS BY WAY OF DAMAGES : ( A ) TO MRS BOIZARD : - BFR 75 000 AS COMPENSATION FOR THE SORROW SUFFERED - BFR 1 066 256 AS MATERIAL DAMAGES CONSISTING IN THE LOSS OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT BY HER HUSBAND ; THE COURT ASSESSED MR BOIZARD ' S EXPECTATION OF LIFE AS BEING FIVE YEARS DURING WHICH TIME HE WOULD HAVE ALLOWED 40% OF HIS MONTHLY SALARY OF BFR 55 306 FOR THE COST OF HIS MAINTAINING HIS WIFE ; ( B)TO MISS BOIZARD : - BFR 25 000 AS COMPENSATION FOR THE SORROW SUFFERED - BFR 574 671 AS MATERIAL DAMAGES ( COST OF MAINTENANCE EQUAL TO 20% OF MR BOIZARD ' S SALARY DURING FIVE YEARS ).
4 FOLLOWING THE DECEASE OF MR BOIZARD THE COMMISSION PAID THE WIDOWS ' AND OPHANS ' PENSIONS TO THE APPLICANTS TO WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED AS FROM 1 MARCH 1973 .
5 BY LETTER OF 19 APRIL 1973 THE APPLICANTS ' LAWYER ASKED THE COMMISSION IF MR BOIZARD WAS INSURED WITH THE COMMUNITIES UNDER A GROUP INSURANCE POLICY AGAINST PERSONAL INJURY OR CAME UNDER CONTRACTUAL RULES ENTITLING HIS NEXT-OF-KIN TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ON ACCOUNT OF HIS DECEASE .
6 THE COMMISSION INVITED THE APPLICANTS ' LAWYER TO SEND IT A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 29 NOVEMBER 1973 WHICH WAS DONE BY LETTER OF 14 MARCH 1974 .
7 ON 10 NOVEMBER 1975 THE COMMISSION CONTACTED THE INSURER OF THE THIRD PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCIDENT TAKING THAT STEP PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 47 OF ANNEX VIII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDE THAT : ' ' WHERE THE INVALIDITY OR DEATH OF AN OFFICIAL IS CAUSED BY A THIRD PARTY , THE RIGHTS OF ACTION OF THE OFFICIAL OR OF THOSE ENTITLED UNDER HIM AGAINST THE THIRD PARTY SHALL VEST IN THE COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS PENSION SCHEME . ' ' THE INSURER OF THE THIRD PARTY LIABLE CLAIMED THAT THAT STEP WAS INADMISSIBLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT AND THE DAMAGES AWARDED TO THOSE ENTITLED UNDER THE DECEASED OFFICIAL HAD BEEN PAID , AND THAT THE COMMISSION ' S RIGHTS BY SUBROGATION COULD NOT EXTEND TO MORE THAN THE VALUE AT COMMON LAW OF THE DAMAGES ACCRUING TO THOSE ENTITLED UNDER THE OFFICIAL . ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUGGESTED TO THE DEFENDANT THAT IT SHOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST THOSE ENTITLED UNDER THE OFFICIAL FOR THE RECOVERY OF SUMS WRONGLY PAID .
8 BY A LETTER OF 25 MAY 1977 THE DEFENDANT INFORMED THE APPLICANTS THAT BY OBTAINING JUDGMENT AGAINST THE THIRD PARTY LIABLE THEY HAD EXERCISED RIGHTS OF ACTION WHICH DID NOT BELONG TO THEM THEREBY DEPRIVING THE COMMISSION OF ITS RIGHT OF RECOURSE UNDER ARTICLE 47 OF ANNEX VIII WHICH PROHIBITS DOUBLE PAYMENTS . THE COMMISSION INVITED THE APPLICANTS TO REPAY TO IT AMONGST OTHER THINGS THE AMOUNTS AWARDED UNDER THE HEAD OF MATERIAL DAMAGES INDICATING THAT IT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO ANY PROPOSALS FOR REPAYMENT BY INSTALMENTS AT ' ' REASONABLE ' ' INTERVALS OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT ONLY AND NOT THE INTEREST .
9 ON 1 JUNE 1978 THE COMMISSION ADOPTED THE DECISION IN ISSUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 41 OF ANNEX VIII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
10 ON 19 JULY 1978 THE APPLICANTS LODGED A COMPLAINT WITH THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AGAINST THAT DECISION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS . BY LETTER OF 19 JANUARY 1979 THE COMMISSION REJECTED THAT COMPLAINT .
11 THE DECISION IN ISSUE WAS NOT PUT INTO EFFECT UNTIL 1 APRIL 1979 .
12 THE APPLICANTS PUT FORWARD THREE SUBMISSIONS . ACCORDING TO THEIR FIRST SUBMISSION THE COMMISSION CANNOT RELY ON ARTICLE 41 OF ANNEX VIII AS THAT PROVISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SITUATION EXISTING AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES . IT ALLOWS THE AMOUNT OF THE PENSION TO BE RECALCULATED IN THE CASE OF ERROR OR OMISSION AND A PENSION TO BE MODIFIED OR WITHDRAWN IF THERE HAS BEEN A MISTAKE OF LAW . IN THE INSTANT CASE THE PENSION IS NOT IN QUESTION . THE ISSUE IS THEREFORE ONE OF MISUSE OF POWERS .
13 ACCORDING TO THE SECOND SUBMISSION THE COMMISSION HAS ACTED IN BREACH OF ARTICLE 47 OF ANNEX VIII INASMUCH AS IT CLAIMS TO BE ENTITLED TO SEEK PAYMENT OF THE SUMS RECOVERED BY THE APPLICANTS FROM THE THIRD PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCIDENT WHEREAS THE PROVISION IN POINT MAKES PROVISION FOR ONLY ' ' SUBROGATION DANS L ' ACTION ' ' ( SUBROGATION ) AND NOT FOR ' ' SUBROGATION DANS LE DROIT ' ' ( ASSIGNMENT OF THE RIGHT OF ACTION ). THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE VESTED THE RIGHTS OF ACTION AGAINST THE THIRD PARTY LIABLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION , APPARENTLY RESERVING TO THE ADMINISTRATION THE POWER NOT TO ACT AND TO LEAVE THE OFFICIAL OR THOSE ENTITLED UNDER HIM TO BRING THEIR OWN ACTION WHICH IN PRINCIPLE SUBSISTS . THE CONDUCT OF THE COMMISSION UP TO 25 MAY 1977 DEMONSTRATED THAT IT HAD WAIVED THE ASSERTION OF ITS RIGHTS OF SUBROGATION .
14 BY THEIR THIRD SUBMISSION THE APPLICANTS PLEAD BREACH OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS INASMUCH AS THE COMMISSION , ALTHOUGH NOT EXPRESSLY REFERRING TO THAT PROVISION , AND ALMOST DENYING THAT IT IS RELYING THEREON , PURPORTS TO APPLY THE RULE WHICH IT LAYS DOWN WHILST THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED BY THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE TO THE RECOVERY OF SUMS OVERPAID ARE NOT FULFILLED IN THIS CASE , AS THE DEFENDANT ITSELF ADMITS .
15 THE COMMISSION DENIES THAT THE DECISION IN ISSUE CONSTITUTES A MISUSE OF POWERS AND INSISTS THAT IT WAS TAKEN IN THE NORMAL EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO WITHDRAWAL OR REVOCATION OF WHICH THE POWER TO RECALCULATE THE AMOUNT OF THE PENSION PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 41 OF ANNEX VIII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS BUT AN ILLUSTRATION . IN REALITY THE DECISION DOES NOTHING MORE THAN COMPLY WITH THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND PREVENT , BY MEANS OF A REASSESSMENT OF THEIR ENTITLEMENT , THE INDIVIDUALS CONCERNED FROM RECEIVING AN IMPROPER DOUBLE PAYMENT .
16 AS REGARDS THE SECOND SUBMISSION THE COMMISSION CONTENDS THAT BY THE EFFECT OF ' ' SUBROGATION DANS L ' ACTION ' ' , THAT IS TO SAY , THE VESTING OF THE LEGAL POWER TO ACT , FOR WHICH PROVISION IS MADE BY ARTICLE 47 OF ANNEX VIII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS , THAT POWER WAS NOT VESTED IN THE APPLICANTS IN THIS CASE . SINCE THEY HAD NO ACTION THEIR RIGHTS WERE ' ' ILLUSORY ' ' AND , TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH ONE HEAD OF THE DAMAGE WAS ALREADY MADE GOOD OR BOUND TO BE SO MADE BY THE PAYMENT OF PENSIONS , DID NOT EVEN EXIST IN THE SHAPE OF RIGHTS TO DAMAGES FROM THE THIRD PARTY .
17 AS REGARDS THE THIRD SUBMISSION THE COMMISSION REPLIES THAT THE DECISION IN ISSUE WAS NOT TAKEN PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 85 . ' ' ANY SUM OVERPAID ' ' TO WHICH THAT PROVISION REFERS IN ORDER TO BRING IT UNDER THE HEADING ' ' RECOVERY ' ' IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD EXCLUSIVELY AS BEING A SUM RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITIES AND NOT FROM THIRD PARTIES .
18 THE FIRST SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICANTS MUST BE UPHELD . ARTICLE 41 OF ANNEX VIII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS PROVIDES : ' ' THE AMOUNT OF PENSIONS MAY AT ANY TIME BE CALCULATED AFRESH IF THERE HAS BEEN ERROR OR OMISSION OF ANY KIND . THEY SHALL BE LIABLE TO MODIFICATION OR WITHDRAWAL IF THE AWARD WAS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OR OF THIS ANNEX . ' ' THAT ARTICLE ENVISAGES THE TWO SPECIFIC CASES OF RECALCULATION OF THE PENSION IF THERE HAS BEEN ERROR OR OMISSION , AND MODIFICATION OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE PENSION IF THE AWARD WAS CONTRARY TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS OR TO THE ANNEX .
19 FURTHERMORE ARTICLE 85 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT ANY SUM OVERPAID SHALL BE RECOVERED IF THE RECIPIENT WAS AWARE THAT THERE WAS NO DUE REASON FOR THE PAYMENT OR IF THE FACT OF THE OVERPAYMENT WAS PATENTLY SUCH THAT HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNAWARE OF IT . THIS LAST PROVISION DOES NOT COVER THE RECOVERY OF A SUM OVERPAID RECEIVED FROM A THIRD PARTY ; IT COVERS ONLY A SUM OVERPAID BY THE COMMUNITIES .
20 THE COMMISSION DOES NOT DENY THAT THE WIDOWS ' AND ORPHANS ' PENSIONS WERE PROPERLY GRANTED AND DETERMINED AS TO THEIR AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND ANNEX VIII THERETO . THE RECALCULATION OF THOSE PENSIONS IN ORDER TO RECOVER A SUM ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED FROM A THIRD PARTY , EVEN IF TO THE POSSIBLE DETRIMENT OF THE COMMUNITIES , DOES NOT COME WITHIN ARTCILE 41 OF THE ANNEX .
21 ACCORDINGLY THE DECISION IN ISSUE MUST BE ANNULLED AND THERE IS NO FURTHER NEED TO EXAMINE THE OTHER SUBMISSIONS .
22 CONSEQUENTLY THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PAY TO THE APPLICANTS THE SUMS DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THEM TOGETHER WITH INTEREST CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF THE DEDUCTIONS . A FAIR RATE IS 8% .