FOR WHICH SHE WAS NOT INDEMNIFIED BY ANY OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION .
3 ARTICLE
60 OF THE NETHERLANDS LAW ON INSURANCE AGAINST PROTRACTED INCAPACITYFOR WORK ( WAO ), REPEALED FROM 1 OCTOBER 1976 , BUT SUBSTANTIALLY RE-ENACTED BY THE GENERAL LAW ON INCAPACITY FOR WORK ( ALGEMENE ARBEIDSONGESCHIKTHEIDSWET ) WHICH ENTERED INTO FORCE ON THE SAME DATE , PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH ( 3 ) THAT RECIPIENTS OF A PENSION FOR INCAPACITY FOR WORK MAY IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BE ENTITLED TO ' ' BENEFITS INTENDED TO MAINTAIN , RESTORE OR IMPROVE THEIR CAPACITY FOR WORK AS WELL AS MEDICAL OR SURGICAL BENEFITS , ' ' PROVIDED THAT ' ' THOSE BENEFITS DO NOT FORM PART OF THE BENEFITS IN KIND GOVERNED BY . . . THE ZIEKENFONDSWET OR . . . BY THE ALGEMENE WET BIJZONDERE ZIEKTEKOSTEN . . . ' ' . A FURTHER FACTOR IN THE CASE AS JUST DESCRIBED IS THAT THE BEDRIJFSVERENIGING REFUSED THE CLAIMANT SUCH AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE DISPUTED HOSPITAL EXPENSES AND MEDICINES ON THE GROUND THAT THOSE EXPENSES FORMED PART OF THE WHOLE OF THE BENEFITS IN KIND GOVERNED BY THE ZIEKENFONDSWET OR BY THE SAID ALGEMENE WET BIJZONDERE ZIEKTEKOSTEN AND WERE THUS EXCLUDED FROM THOSE WHICH COULD BE GRANTED TO THE RECIPIENT OF A PENSION FOR INCAPACITY FOR WORK UNDER ARTICLE 60 ( 3 ) OF THE WAO , THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF WHICH ARTICLE PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT THE BEDRIJFSVERENIGING HAS THE POWER , IN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO GRANT INSURED PERSONS THAT ALLOWANCE .
4 IN VIEW OF THAT LEGISLATION AND HAVING REGARD TO THE RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW ON ' ' SICKNESS AND MATERNITY BENEFITS ' ' , THE CENTRALE RAAD VAN BEROEP ASKED THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UPON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS :
' ' QUESTION 1
MUST THE WORDS ' SICKNESS AND MATERNITY BENEFITS ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) ( A ) AND CHAPTER 1 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1408/71 BE INTERPRETED AS ALSO INCLUDING IN PRINCIPLE BENEFITS UNDER LEGISLATION CONCERNING INVALIDITY WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF MEDICAL OR SURGICAL BENEFITS?
QUESTION 2
IF QUESTION 1 IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE , DOES THAT MEAN , HAVING REGARD TO ARTICLE 19 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) AND ARTICLE 28 ( 1 ) OF THE REGULATION , THAT THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION OF A MEMBER STATE IS NOT EMPOWERED TO GRANT SUCH BENEFITS TO A PERSON WHO IS ENTITLED TO INVALIDITY BENEFITS UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THAT MEMBER STATE IF THE PERSON CONCERNED RESIDES IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE AND AS A RESULT THE LEGISLATION CONCERNING SICKNESS ( AND MATERNITY ) BENEFITS OF THE LATTER STATE IS APPLICABLE TO HIM?
QUESTION 3
IF QUESTION 1 IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE , MUST ARTICLES 19 AND 28 OF THE REGULATION BE INTERPRETED AS EXCLUDING SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURES UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE CONCERNING INVALIDITY PURSUANT TO WHICH THE PERSON CONCERNED IS ENTITLED