ABOVE ALL TO CASES IN WHICH THE LEGISLATION OF ONE MEMBER STATE BY ITSELF WOULD NOT ENABLE AN INSURED PERSON TO QUALIFY FOR THE RIGHT TO BENEFIT BECAUSE OF AN INSUFFICIENT NUMBER OF PERIODS COMPLETED UNDER THAT LEGISLATION .
11TO REMEDY THE SITUATION THESE PROVISIONS PROVIDE , FOR THE BENEFIT OF A WORKER WHO HAS BEEN SUCCESSIVELY OR ALTERNATELY SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF TWO OR MORE MEMBER STATES , FOR THE AGGREGATION OF INSURANCE PERIODS COMPLETED UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF EACH OF THOSE STATES .
12AS REGARDS OLD-AGE AND DEATH PENSIONS , ARTICLES 27 AND 28 OF REGULATION NO 3 APPLY TO SUCH A SITUATION , BUT NOT WHEN IN A STATE THE OBJECT SOUGHT BY ARTICLE 51 IS ATTAINED UNDER NATIONAL LEGISLATION ALONE .
13THE SCHEME OF ARTICLES 27 AND 28 THUS IMPLIES A SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATION OF THOSE TWO PROVISIONS .
14AS A RESULT , APPORTIONEMENT OF BENEFITS MAY NOT BE MADE , UNLESS IT HAS BEEN NECESSARY , FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE RIGHT , TO AGGREGATE BEFOREHAND THE PERIODS COMPLETED UNDER DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE SYSTEMS , BUT IT MAY NOT BE USED IF ITS EFFECT IS TO REDUCE THE BENEFITS WHICH THE INSURED PERSON CAN CLAIM UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A SINGLE STATE .
15THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF THE SAME RULES WHEN THE PROBLEM ARISES OF THE APPLICATION BY ANALOGY OF ARTICLES 27 AND 28 TO INVALIDITY PENSIONS .
16AS THE COURT OF JUSTICE HAS ALREADY RULED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 14 MARCH 1978 IN CASE 83/77 ( NASELLI V CAISSE AUXILIAIRE D ' ASSURANCE MALADIE-INVALIDITE ( 1978 ) ECR 683 ) THE RESTRICTIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ) OF THE REGULATION APPLY TO INSURED PERSONS ONLY AS REGARDS BENEFITS ACQUIRED BY APPLYING REGULATIONS NOS 3 AND 4 .
17ON THE OTHER HAND CONSIDERATION OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 3 SHOWS THAT NONE OF THEM PRECLUDES THE APPLICATION TO BENEFITS ACQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION ALONE OF NATIONAL RULES AGAINST THE OVERLAPPING OF BENEFITS .
18CONSEQUENTLY IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS WHERE THE INSURED IS ENTITLED TO A PENSION BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF HIS NATIONAL LEGISLATION ALONE , THE NATIONAL RULES AGAINST THE OVERLAPPING OF BENEFITS ARE APPLICABLE TO HIM .
19IN APPLYING THE RULES AGAINST THE OVERLAPPING OF BENEFITS , IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO CLASSIFY THE BENEFITS REFERRED TO IN THE QUESTIONS RAISED , IN CONFORMITY WITH THE APPLICABLE NATIONAL LEGISLATION TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE RULES RELATING TO THE CONFLICT OF LAWS AND THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS ARE NOT RELEVANT .
20HOWEVER , IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT A MIGRANT WORKER DOES NOT LOSE THE BENEFIT OF A PENSION TO WHICH HE WOULD BE ENTITLED UNDER THE RULES OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION ALONE THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MANCUSO CASE ( CASE 140/73 SECURITE SOCIALE PARIS V MANCUSO ( 1973 ) 2 ECR 1449 ) HELD THAT IN CERTAIN CASES THE RULES CONCERNING AGGREGATION AND APPORTIONMENT ARE NOT APPLICABLE .
21ACCORDINGLY IF