TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SAID RATE AND THE DAILY RATE OF PENSION BUT NOT EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT . . .
2 .. . . WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ARTICLE 142 , PARAGRAPH ( 1 ) SHALL APPLY TO AN UNEMPLOYED PERSON WHO IS ENTITLED TO :
( 1 ) . . .
( 2 ). . .
( 3 ). . . ( ROYAL DECREE OF 11 SEPTEMBER 1969 , ARTICLE 2 ) A BENEFIT GRANTED UNDER A FOREIGN SICKNESS AND INSURANCE SCHEME ON ACCOUNT OF INCAPACITY FOR WORK OF LESS THAN 50% NOT CAUSED BY AN ACCIDENT AT WORK OR OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE . ' '
9 THE COUR DU TRAVAIL , MONS , CONSIDERED THAT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 146 TO THIS CASE , IT HAD TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER , HAVING REGARD TO THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 40 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , MRS BACCINI WAS LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO THE ITALIAN BENEFIT . FOR THAT PURPOSE , IT REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' ' FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEGISLATION , DOES THE DECISION ' CONCERNING THE DEGREE OF INVALIDITY OF A CLAIMANT ' , ANY ' MULTINATIONAL ' EFFECTS OF WHICH ARE GOVERNED BY ARTICLE 40 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , INCLUDE A DECISION THAT THERE IS NO INVALIDITY TAKEN AFTER A DECISION HAS ESTABLISHED INVALIDITY? DOES NOT THE DECISION ' CONCERNING THE DEGREE OF INVALIDITY ' REFER AS MUCH TO A DECISION THAT THERE IS NO INVALIDITY AS TO A DECISION ESTABLISHING INVALIDITY? IS NOT ARTICLE 40 ( 4 ), WHICH IS EXPRESSED IN GENERAL TERMS AND APPEARS UNDER THE HEADING ' GENERAL PROVISIONS ' , WIDER IN SCOPE THAN ARTICLE 44 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATION , NO 574/22? MUST NOT ARTICLE 40 ( 4 ) BE INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOGIC AND REASON IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE ' ACTE CONTRAIRE ' OR ' PARALLELISME DES FORMES ' ( SEE AUBRY AND DRAGO ' S TRAITE DU CONTENTIEUX ADMINISTRATIF , 1962 , PARAS 1058 TO 1081 ) SO AS TO COMPENSATE FOR ANY LACUNAE IN THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATION WHICH MIGHT GIVE RISE TO SITUATIONS LITTLE SHORT OF ABSURD , SUCH AS THAT AT PRESENT BEFORE THIS COURT?
' '
10 DURING THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT , THE COMMISSION STRESSED THAT MRS BACCINI ' S INCAPACITY FOR WORK HAD BEEN ASSESSED AT MORE THAN 50% AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY ARTICLE 146 OF THE ROYAL DECREE OF 20 DECEMBER 1963 DID NOT SEEM TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE SITUATION IN THIS CASE . IT FOLLOWED , ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION , THAT THE QUESTION , WHICH WAS SUBMITTED , ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE JUDGMENT MAKING THE REFERENCE , IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THAT PROVISION OF NATIONAL LAW MIGHT BE APPLIED TO MRS BACCINI , WAS NOT RELEVANT .
11 ACCORDING TO WELL-ESTABLISHED