177 OF THE EEC TREATY, THE QUESTION WHETHER A PERSON IN RECEIPT OF AN INVALIDITY PENSION UNDER A SICKNESS INSURANCE SCHEME, ARISING FROM HER EMPLOYMENT IN A MEMBER STATE WHEREIN SHE WAS RESIDENT, AND WHO IS BY VIRTUE OF THAT PENSION ENTITLED TO A SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCE, CAN PRESERVE THIS RIGHT IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF REGULATION NO 3 WHICH WAS IN FORCE AT THAT TIME, IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD 1 APRIL 1972 TO 1 OCTOBER 1972 DURING WHICH SHE TOOK UP RESIDENCE IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE, AND CONTINUE TO RECEIVE IN THAT COUNTRY THE SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCE IN ADDITION TO THE INVALIDITY PENSION .
2 THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MISS BIASON, WHO HAS SINCE 15 JUNE 1971 BEEN ENTITLED TO AN INVALIDITY PENSION UNDER THE FRENCH SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, WAS AS FROM THAT SAME DATE IN RECEIPT OF A SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCE FROM THE FONDS NATIONAL DE SOLIDARITE, ESTABLISHED IN FRANCE BY A LAW OF 30 JUNE 1956, AND GRANTED TO HOLDERS OF A BENEFIT PAYABLE FOR TO BE ON THE BASIS OF AN INVALIDITY REDUCING THE WORKING CAPACITY BY TWO-THIRDS OR MORE, AND WHO IS RESIDENT IN FRANCE .
3 WHEN SHE CHANGED HER RESIDENCE TO ITALY, SHE HAD THIS GRANT WITHDRAWN BY VIRTUE OF THE FRENCH PROVISIONS AND THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT TO THE FRANCO-ITALIAN PROTOCOL OF 11 JANUARY 1957 .
4 THE QUESTION REFERRED AMOUNTS IN ESSENCE TO WHETHER A PARTY RESIDING IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE MAY RECEIVE THIS GRANT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL .
5 TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION IT IS FIRST OF ALL NECESSARY TO KNOW WHETHER THE BENEFIT IN QUESTION COMES WITHIN THE RANGE OF APPLICATION OF REGULATION NO 3 .
6 WITHOUT IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS BEING ABLE TO LABEL THIS BENEFIT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FRENCH LEGISLATION, THE COURT CAN NEVERTHELESS PROVIDE THE NATIONAL COURT WITH AIDS TO INTERPRETATION DERIVED FROM COMMUNITY LAW WHICH MIGHT GUIDE IT IN AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF THIS LEGISLATION .
7 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1 ( B ) THEREOF, REGULATION NO 3 APPLIES TO ALL LEGISLATION OF MEMBER STATES THAT CONCERNS 'SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMES AND BRANCHES OF SOCIAL SECURITY' SET OUT IN PARAGRAPHS ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) OF ARTICLE 2 .
8 ON THE OTHER HAND, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 2 ( 3 ), THE REGULATION SHALL NOT APPLY TO 'SOCIAL AND MEDICAL ASSISTANCE '.
9 WHILST IT MAY SEEM DESIRABLE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF APPLYING THIS REGULATION TO ESTABLISH A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE SCHEMES THAT FALL RESPECTIVELY WITHIN SOCIAL SECURITY AND ASSISTANCE, ONE CANNOT EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT BY REASON OF THE PERSONS COVERED, ITS OBJECTIVES AND ITS METHOD OF APPLICATON, A LEGISLATION CAN COME CLOSE TO BOTH THESE CATEGORIES, THUS PREVENTING ANY COMPREHENSIVE CLASSIFICATION .
10 IN THE EVENT OF SUCH LEGISLATION, HAVING CEASED TO CONCERN ITSELF WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF NEED IN THE