Opinion of Advocate General Darmon delivered on 30 June 1993

1 Original language: French.

2 Case T-110/89 Pincherle v Commission [1991] ECR II-635.

3 I. Facts and procedure before the Court of First Instance.

4 It is apparent from statement of payment No 72 that two items were reimbursed at the rate of 29% and one at the rate of 43%. According to statement of payment No 73. one item was reimbursed at the rate of 79.73% and the other at the rate of 66.5%.

5 The Unione Sindacale Euratom Ispra, the Sindacato Ricerca della Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro, the Sindacato Ricerca dell'Unione Italiana del Lavoro and the Sindacato Ricerca della Confederazione Italiana Sindacati Liberi.

6 Statement of the reasons for Article 114.

7 Order of 3 June 1964 in Cisc 6/64 Costa v ENEL 1964) LCR 614.

8 Sec above, note 3.

9 P. 4 of the French translation of the appeal.

10 Cf. Third Franco-German Legal Proceedings (Paris, 10-11 October 1980) on the theme The review of findings of fact by courts of cassation, Revue internationale de droit comparé, Special Issue, Vol. 2, Î980.

11 Cise 115/83 Ooms v Commission [1984] ECU 2613.

12 Paragraph 2.

13 Paragraph 14.

14 P. 9 of the French translation of the appeal.

15 Case 48/70 Bernardi v Parliament [1971] ECR 175

16 Paragraph 27.

17 Casc 256/78 Miserila v Commission [1980] P.CR 219

18 Paragraph 12.

19 Paragraph 11.

20 Case 156/78 Newth v Commission [1979] ECR 1941.

21 That article provides, in substance, that where an official is retired his allowance and the remuneration last received by him arc to be weighted at the rate fixed for the place where he was last postea.

22 Paragraph 13.

23 Case 7/87 Commission v Council [1988] ECR 3401.

24 Paragraph 25.

25 Casc 828/79 Adam v Commission [1982] LCR 269.

26 Paragraph 39.

27 Paragraph 14.