Opinion of Mr advocate-general Lagrange

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

As you know, the action which the applicant, Mr Lepape, a member of the Inspection Directorate at the High Authority, is bringing against the latter, relates partly to the reimbursement, refused by the administration, of the expenses of the removal effected on 22 April 1961 from Luxembourg to Brussels following a change of employment, and partly to the calculation of mission expenses for a whole series of missions undertaken since 1 July 1959. Let us examine these two points in order.

A — Removal Expenses

The question involves aspects of law and of fact.

B — Mission expenses

The dispute turns in essence — it could be said solely, since the other differences over the calculation of the mission expenses have now disappeared — on the interpretation which must be given to the Regulations where they authorize the use of the official's own car and provide for reimbursement for journeys made under these conditions.

The relevant provision is Article 1/ (d) of the Staff Regulations of July 1956, as amended by decision of the Committee of Chairmen of 21 November 1960. The provision as amended is to be found with no alterations other than those required for references, at Article 12 (4) of Annex VII to the present Staff Regulations; the interpretation which you give to provisions in force at the time when the missions in dispute were undertaken will thus be valid for the future also.

Some of the missions relate to the original provisions of the Regulations, others to the provisions as amended. The two successive versions should therefore be examined.

1 Translated from the French.