16In its second plea, the Commission alleges that the form of order sought by the applicant as formulated in the application is inadmissible. The request made by the applicant in her reply to the effect that she should be allowed to defer setting out the form of order sought until the hearing is unlawful, since, according to Article 44(1 )(d) of the Rules of Procedure, it is for the party, and not the Court, to formulate the form of order sought. The first head of the form of order sought does not seek to deprive a specific Commission decision of effect, but instead is intended to have the Court issue a direction to the defendant institution so as to allow the applicant to continue to be affiliated to the Common Scheme, outside the provisions of the Staff Regulations. It is settled law that the Community judicature is not entitled to issue directions to a Community institution because that would encroach upon the prerogatives of the administrative authority (Case T-510/93Obst v Commission [1994] ECR-SC II-461, paragraph 27; Case T-15/91Bollendorff v Parliament [1992] ECR II-1679, paragraph 57). Nor can the Court oblige the Commission to act contrary to the binding provisions of the Staff Regulations (Joined Cases C-41/88 and C-178/88Becker and Starquit v Parliament [1989] ECR 3807).