A BENEFIT IS PAYABLE TO HIM , BE AWARDED A BENEFIT LESS THAN THE MINIMUM BENEFIT DETERMINED BY THAT LEGISLATION FOR A PERIOD OF INSURANCE OR RESIDENCE EQUAL TO ALL THE INSURANCE PERIODS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRECEDING ARTICLES . THE RESPONSIBLE INSTITUTION OF THAT STATE SHALL , IF NECESSARY , PAY HIM THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF HIS RESIDENCE IN ITS TERRITORY A SUPPLEMENT EQUAL TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL OF THE BENEFITS PAYABLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER AND THE AMOUNT OF THE MINIMUM BENEFIT ' .
4 THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION TAKES THE VIEW THAT IF NO MINIMUM BENEFIT OF A FIXED AMOUNT IS DETERMINED BY THE BELGIAN LEGISLATION WHICH WAS APPLICABLE TO HIM THE MINIMUM BENEFIT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS CORRESPONDING TO THE AMOUNT OF THE THEORETICAL BELGIAN PENSION CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 46 ( 2 ) ( A ) OF THE REGULATION , THAT IS TO SAY , THE AMOUNT OF THE PENSION WHICH WOULD BE PAYABLE TO HIM IF ALL HIS INSURANCE PERIODS HAD BEEN COMPLETED UNDER THE RELEVANT BELGIAN LEGISLATION .
5 ARTICLE 50 COVERS CASES WHERE THE PERIODS OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE WORKER UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATES TO WHICH HE WAS SUBJECT WERE RELATIVELY SHORT WITH THE RESULT THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS PAYABLE BY THOSE STATES DOES NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE STANDARD OF LIVING .
6 IN ORDER TO REMEDY THAT SITUATION THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATE OF RESIDENCE LAYS DOWN A MINIMUM BENEFIT , THE BENEFIT PAYABLE BY THAT STATE SHALL BE INCREASED BY A SUPPLEMENT EQUAL TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL OF THE BENEFITS PAYABLE BY THE DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES TO THE LEGISLATION OF WHICH THE WORKER WAS SUBJECT AND THE MINIMUM BENEFIT .
7 MOREOVER ARTICLE 5 OF THE REGULATION PROVIDES THAT THE MEMBER STATES SHALL SPECIFY IN THE DECLARATIONS REFERRED TO IN THAT ARTICLE ' THE MINIMUM BENEFITS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 50 ' ; THAT PROVISION ACCORDS WITH THE HYPOTHESIS THAT NOT ALL THE SYSTEMS OF LEGISLATION NECESSARILY INCLUDE MINIMUM BENEFITS OF THE TYPE IN QUESTION BUT IT WOULD SCARCELY BE COMPREHENSIBLE IF THE INTERPRETATION PUT FORWARD BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION WERE CORRECT .
8 ACCORDING TO THE DECLARATION MADE BY THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM A MINIMUM BENEFIT EXISTS ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LAWS RELATING TO INVALIDITY PENSIONS FOR MINEWORKERS .
9 IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO ASSESS WHETHER THAT DECLARATION IS COMPLETE HAVING REGARD TO ALL THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION IN QUESTION .
10 MOREOVER , THE VIEW OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER III OF THE REGULATION .
11 INDEED , WHILE THOSE PROVISIONS SERVE TO ENSURE THAT PENSIONED WORKERS WHO HAVE WORKED FOR IDENTICAL PERIODS UNDER IDENTICAL SYSTEMS OF LEGISLATION RECEIVE IDENTICAL PENSIONS , THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF ' S VIEW WOULD BE