1980 ) ECR 1915 ). ACCORDING TO THE BELGIAN SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION , ARTICLE 51 OF THE EEC TREATY CONFERS POWERS ON THE COUNCIL SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGGREGATING INSURANCE PERIODS AND ENSURING THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF BENEFITS TO PERSONS RESIDING IN THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATES , AND IN VIEW OF THOSE LIMITS ARTICLE 77 ( 2 ) ( B ) ( I ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 CAN CONSTITUTE NOTHING MORE THAN A RENVOI RULE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE APPLICABLE NATIONAL LAW . IT THEREFORE CONSIDERED THAT IF ARTICLE 77 ( 2 ) ( B ) ( I ) HAD TO BE CONSTRUED AS GIVING RISE TO A RIGHT NOT PROVIDED FOR IN ANY NATIONAL LEGISLATION IT WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY ARTICLE 51 OF THE EEC TREATY .
5 MR PATTERI CONTESTED THAT RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 51 OF THE EEC TREATY AND OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , WHICH WOULD CAUSE HIM TO FORFEIT THE HIGHER FAMILY ALLOWANCES THAT HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED HAD HE CONTINUED TO RESIDE IN BELGIUM .
6 IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE COUR D ' APPEL ( COURT OF APPEAL ), MONS , WHICH HAD FOUND IN FAVOUR OF MR PATTERI , THE COUR DE CASSATION CONSIDERED THAT THE ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD RAISED QUESTIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH DID NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PREVIOUSLY TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE . CONSEQUENTLY , THE COUR DE CASSATION SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS :
' ' 1 . DOES ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY OF ROME AUTHORIZE THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS ONLY TO ADOPT SUCH MEASURES AS ARE NECESSARY TO SECURE FOR MIGRANT WORKERS THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS , THE SAID BENEFITS CONTINUING TO BE GOVERNED , AS REGARDS THE PRINCIPLE AND THE AMOUNT THEREOF , EXCLUSIVELY BY SEPARATE BODIES OF RULES GIVING RISE TO SEPARATE CLAIMS AGAINST SEPARATE INSTITUTIONS , AND IS IT THEREFORE APPROPRIATE TO INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 77 THEREOF , AS CONFERRING A DIRECT RIGHT UPON INDIVIDUALS ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO SECURE THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF BENEFITS , THE PRINCIPLE AND THE AMOUNT OF WHICH CONTINUE TO BE GOVERNED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE VARIOUS NATIONAL LAWS , SO THAT THE SAID PROVISION CANNOT CREATE FOR MIGRANT WORKERS DIRECT ENTITLEMENT TO PAYMENT BY THE AUTHORITIES OF A MEMBER STATE OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES WHICH ARE NOT PAYABLE UNDER THE NATIONAL LAW OF THAT MEMBER STATE?
2.IF IT IS NECESSARY TO INTERPRET ARTICLE 77 ( 2 ) ( B ) ( I ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 AS MEANING THAT ENTITLEMENT TO THE PAYMENT OF FAMILY BENEFITS BY THE MEMBER STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THE RECIPIENT OF AN INVALIDITY PENSION RESIDES DOES NOT TAKE AWAY A PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED RIGHT TO HIGHER BENEFITS PAYABLE BY ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , OR AT LEAST TO A SUPPLEMENT EQUAL TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO AMOUNTS , ESTABLISHING FOR THE RECIPIENT A RIGHT WHICH WAS NOT CREATED BY