2.

The question put by the Belgian court thus concerns Article 51 of Regulation No 1408/71. That article is headed “revalorization and recalculation of benefits” and comes in Chapter 3 [“Old Age and Death (Pension)”], but for obvious reasons of analogy it also applies to the invalidity benefits governed by Section 2 of Chapter 2. Article 51 provides : “(1) If, by reason of an increase in the cost of living ..., the benefits of the States concerned are altered by a fixed percentage or amount, such percentage or amount must be applied directly to the benefits determined under the provisions of Article 46, without the need for a recalculation ... (2) On the other hand, if the method of determining or the rules for calculating benefits should be altered, a recalculation shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article 46.” The Court had occasion to deal with Article 51 in its judgment of 2 February 1982 in Case 7/81 (Sinatra v Fonds National [1982] ECR 137), where it was stated that its objective is to simplify the procedure for the payment of benefits. In particular, the Court held that a fresh calculation was not required “where the alterations in the benefits result from events unconnected with the personal circumstances of the insured” (paragraph 10). However, it must be noted that there is a difference between the present case and the Sinatra case. Mr Sinatra was receiving benefits of the same kind (invalidity pensions). Mr Cinciuolo is also receiving a benefit — that for occupational disease — which has no resemblance to a pension. As I have said, it is that difference on which the Institut National relies. In its view, Article 51 applies only to benefits of a similar nature. Two arguments are put forward in support of that contention: First, Article 51 refers only to Article 46, which deals with benefits of the same kind, and makes no mention of Article 12 where the nature of the benefits is irrelevant for the purposes of the rules against overlapping and account may also be taken of earned income. Secondly, it must be borne in mind that if benefits of a different kind, and in particular earned income, may overlap with an invalidity pension the difficulties of calculation involved in the application of Article 51 would become insuperable. I am not convinced by those arguments. Let me say first of all that Article 51 does not distinguish between benefits according to their nature. It merely requires that the alteration should relate to “benefits of the State concerned ... determined under the provisions of Article 46”. Now, it is quite clear that the occupational disease benefit is a social security benefit; indeed Article 4 (1) (e) of Regulation No 1408/71 says so expressly. But let us examine the Institut National's arguments more closely. With regard to the first, it seems apparent that the reference made by Article 51 to Article 46 is a reference to Article 46 as a whole. It thus includes paragraph (3), under which benefits of a different nature are also to be taken into account in calculating the pension in so far as they arc provided for by the rules against overlapping in Article 12 of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 7 of Regulation No 574/72. Moreover, as I have said, it is precisely on that basis that on 6 November 1980 the Institut National took account of the Italian benefit for occupational disease when proportionately reducing the Belgian invalidity pension. As for the second argument, I cannot say that the parallel drawn by the Institut National between this pension and earned income is apt. In the first place, it is doubtful that when Article 51 refers to an alteration in the “benefits of the States concerned” it includes variations to which such income is subject. Let us assume however that, by way of Article 12, earned income has had an effect upon a benefit calculated pursuant to Article 46; even in such a case as that the difficulties which the Institut National mentions do not really strike me as insuperable. Two hypothetical cases may be conceived. In the first the alteration in earned income depends on external factors, such as an increase in the cost of living. According to the Sinatra case, Article 51 does not allow a fresh calculation. In the second case the same result arises through circumstances peculiar to the insured: for example an improvement or worsening of his health. According to the Sinatra case, the social security institution must recalculate the benefit. It is obvious that those observations apply a fortiori to benefits which it is not possible to regard as pensions but which are of a different nature from earned income.