1 BY APPLICATIONS LODGED ON 16 OCTOBER 1969 THE APPLICANTS, WHO LOST THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE FOLLOWING A CHANGE IN THEIR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, REQUESTED THE COURT TO ANNUL THE IMPLIED DECISIONS BY WHICH THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO AWARD THEM THE SUM WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED BY WAY OF SEPARATION ALLOWANCE UNDER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 97 OF THE SECOND ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS .
2 IN ADDITION, THEY HAVE CLAIMED COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGE WHICH THEY ALLEGEDLY SUFFERED AS THE RESULT OF A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION . I - ADMISSIBILITY
3 THE DEFENDANT RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER THE APPLICATIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE SUBMITTED OUTSIDE THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT .
4 IT CLAIMS THAT THE CONCEPT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY REQUIRED THE APPLICANTS TO SUBMIT A COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS AT THE LATEST ON THE EXPIRY OF THE THIRD MONTH FOLLOWING THE FIRST PAYMENT OF THE REDUCED REMUNERATION, AND TO FOLLOW IT IF NECESSARY BY AN APPEAL TO THE COURT .
5 MOREOVER, THE DEFENDANT CLAIMS THAT THE STAFF MEMORANDA ADDRESSED ON 11 JUNE 1968 TO THE APPLICANT IN CASE 61/69 AND ON 5 JULY 1968 TO THE APPLICANTS IN THE TWO OTHER CASES, BROUGHT THE IMMINENT DISCONTINUANCE OF THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE TO THE NOTICE OF THE OFFICIALS CONCERNED .
6 THE PROPORTION OF THE APPLICANTS' EMOLUMENTS WHICH WAS DISCONTINUED IN 1968 WAS MADE UP OF THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 4 OF THE COMBINED STAFF REGULATIONS .
7 THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THAT ALLOWANCE ALSO FORMS THE SUBJECT OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED STAFF MEMORANDA .
8 THAT ALLOWANCE WAS DISCONTINUED IN PURSUANCE OF THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 97 OF THE SECOND ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS .
9 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS SEEK TO OBTAIN FOR THE APPLICANTS THE AMOUNT WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED BY WAY OF THE FORMER SEPARATION ALLOWANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 106 OF THE EEC-EAEC STAFF REGULATIONS AND THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 97 OF THE SECOND ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS .
10 THUS, THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS DO NOT CONCERN THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION IN 1968 .
11 THE APPLICATIONS ARE THUS ADMISSIBLE . II - SUBSTANCE 1 - THE FIRST TWO HEADS OF CLAIM
12 UNDER THE FIRST TWO HEADS OF CLAIM IN THEIR APPLICATIONS THE APPLICANTS ARE SEEKING, FIRST, THE ANNULMENT OF THE IMPLIED DECISION REJECTING THEIR REQUEST FOR THE AWARD OF THE AMOUNT WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED BY WAY OF SEPARATION ALLOWANCE, AND SECONDLY, A RULING THAT THEY MAY CLAIM PAYMENT OF THIS AMOUNT AND AN ORDER FOR IT TO BE PAID BY THE DEFENDANT .
13 THE APPLICANTS BASE THESE REQUESTS ON ARTICLE 106 OF THE EEC-EAEC STAFF REGULATIONS AND THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 97 OF THE SECOND ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS .
14 THE CONTENT OF THESE TWO PROVISIONS IS THE SAME ALTHOUGH THE FIRST REFERS TO OFFICIALS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE EEC-EAEC STAFF REGULATIONS WHILST THE SECOND REFERS TO OFFICIALS WHO, HAVING PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUBJECT TO THE FIRST ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS, AUTOMATICALLY BECAME OFFICIALS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND STAFF REGULATIONS OF THAT COMMUNITY BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 93 THEREOF .
15 AS THE APPLICANTS FALL INTO THE LATTER CATEGORY THEIR APPLICATIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED SOLELY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 97 .
16 THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 97 IS TO MAINTAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF OFFICIALS WHO RECEIVED A SEPARATION ALLOWANCE UNDER THE FIRST ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS, WITHOUT QUALIFYING FOR AN EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE UNDER THE STRICTER REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 4 OF ANNEX VII TO THE SECOND ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS, THE AMOUNT WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED BY WAY OF SEPARATION ALLOWANCE UNDER THE FORMER SYSTEM .
17 HAVING RECEIVED THE SEPARATION ALLOWANCE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE FIRST ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS, THE APPLICANTS QUALIFIED FOR THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SECOND ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS .
18 THUS THEY WERE NEVER IN THE SITUATION REFERRED TO IN THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISION CONTAINED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 97 .
19 ACCORDINGLY, THE FIRST TWO HEADS OF CLAIM IN THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED . 2 - THE THIRD HEAD OF CLAIM
20 UNDER THE THIRD HEAD OF CLAIM IN THEIR APPLICATIONS, THE APPLICANTS REQUEST THE COURT TO " RULE THAT AS A RESULT OF ACTS AND OMISSIONS ON THE PART OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY, ( THEY ) SUFFERED EXCEPTIONAL DAMAGE, THE AMOUNT OF WHICH SHOULD BE DETERMINED IMPARTIALLY BY THE COURT ".
21 THIS REQUEST IS BASED ON THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE APPLICANTS' EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE WAS DISCONTINUED .
22 THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS DISADVANTAGE IS TO BE FOUND IN THE FIRST DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 97 OF THE SECOND ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS, WHICH BECAME DEFINITIVE WHEN NO APPEAL WAS SUBMITTED WITHIN THE PERIOD LAID DOWN .
23 AS THE APPLICANTS WERE DULY ADVISED OF THE MEASURES FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENTS FOLLOWING THE MERGER OF THE INSTITUTIONS AND THE EFFECTS WHICH THESE WOULD HAVE ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL POSITIONS, THEY CANNOT COMPLAIN THAT THE COMMISSION' S ACTION WAS SUCH AS TO RENDER IT LIABLE .
24 FOR THIS REASON THE THIRD HEAD OF CLAIM MUST BE DISMISSED .