1 THE APPLICANT ASKS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF 9 MARCH 1972 WHEREBY THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO GRANT HER THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE PROVIDED BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS;
2 SHE ASKS IN ADDITION THAT HER CLAIM TO BE GRANTED SUCH AN ALLOWANCE WITH EFFECT FROM 30 SEPTEMBER 1965 BE RECOGNIZED AS FOUNDED IN LAW;
3 THE DEFENDANT HAS RAISED IN THE COURSE OF THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS A PLEA OF INADMISSIBILITY ARISING OUT OF THE LATE SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION;
4 IT IS FOR THE COURT EVEN OF ITS OWN MOTION, TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE TIME LIMITS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED, THESE BEING A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST;
5 THE APPLICANT HAVING BEEN GRANTED SPECIAL LEAVE WAS TAKEN BACK INTO THE SERVICE OF THE COMMISSION WITH EFFECT FROM 20 SEPTEMBER 1965 AND POSTED TO THE JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE AT ISPRA;
6 ON THIS OCCASION THE SEVERAL COMPONENTS OF HER SALARY WERE FIXED BY A DECISION OF 5 OCTOBER 1965;
7 IT APPEARS FROM THE DOCUMENT IN WHICH THIS DECISION WAS RECORDED A COPY OF WHICH WAS SENT TO THE APPLICANT, THAT THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE WAS NOT GRANTED TO HER;
8 THE APPLICANT DID NOT CONTEST THIS DECISION EITHER BY A COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS WITHIN TWO MONTHS, OR BY AN APPEAL TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE WITHIN THREE MONTHS, AS SHE COULD HAVE DONE BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS THEN IN FORCE .
9 THE APPLICANT CONTESTS, BY THE PRESENT APPLICATION, THE LETTER DATED 9 MARCH 1972 IN WHICH THE DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL OF THE COMMISSION ASSERTED, IN REPLY TO A NOTE WHICH THE APPLICANT ADDRESSED TO IT ON 30 AUGUST 1971, THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT FULFIL THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 4 OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS SO AS TO OBTAIN THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE;
10 THAT LETTER, WHILE SETTING OUT IN DETAIL THE FACTS IT HAD TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, ONLY CONFIRMED THE PREVIOUS DECISION WHEREBY THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO GRANT THE APPLICANT THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE AND INFORMED HER THAT THIS COULD NOT BE PAID SO LONG AS SHE WAS EMPLOYED AT ISPRA;
11 SUCH A COMMUNICATION COULD NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF SETTING A FRESH TIME LIMIT IN THE APPLICANT' S FAVOUR;
12 THE APPLICATION IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE;
13 THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HER APPLICATION;
14 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS;
15 HOWEVER, UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, COSTS INCURRED BY THE INSTITUTIONS, IN APPLICATIONS BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES, SHALL BE BORNE BY THE INSTITUTIONS;
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION AS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS EACH PARTY TO BEAR ITS OWN COSTS .
