NOT EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO BY ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY, IS AN INSEPARABLE COMPONENT OF THE OPERATION OF AGGREGATION AND NECESSARILY PRESUPPOSES A PRIOR AGGREGATION .
P.189
IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT AGGREGATION AND PROPORTIONAL CALCULATION HAVE NO PURPOSE IN THE CASE OF A STATUTE IN WHICH THE RESULT SOUGHT BY ARTICLE 51 IS ALREADY ATTAINED BY VIRTUE OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION ALONE . ARTICLE 51 CANNOT THEREFORE SERVE AS A BASIS FOR CALCULATION OF THE BENEFIT BY THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION OF THAT STATE BY MEANS OF AGGREGATION AND PROPORTIONAL CALCULATION .
( 3 ) HAVING REGARD, NEVERTHELESS, TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE LEGISLATION OF MEMBER STATES AND THAT ARISING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW, THIS PRINCIPLE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS AN ABSOLUTE RULE . IN PARTICULAR IT CAN BE VALID ONLY IN SO FAR AS ITS APPLICATION DOES NOT PROVIDE THE INSURED PERSON WITH BENEFITS EXCEEDING THOSE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY OR THE REGULATIONS ADOPTED IN IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF .
THE SAID ARTICLE IS INTENDED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT INSURANCE PERIODS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE INOPERATIVE, BUT NOT TO ALLOW THE INSURED PERSON TO CLAIM BENEFITS RELATING TO ONE AND THE SAME PERIOD FROM THE INSTITUTIONS OF SEVERAL STATES . IT IS MOREOVER IN THIS SPIRIT THAT ARTICLE 27(1 ) OF REGULATION NO 3 PROVIDES FOR AGGREGATION ONLY TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ASSURANCE PERIODS IN QUESTION ' DO NOT OVERLAP '. THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PRINCIPLE IS THUS SUBJECT TO AN EXCEPTION WHEN ITS APPLICATION WOULD LEAD TO AN ACCUMULATION OF BENEFITS FOR ONE AND THE SAME PERIOD .
HOWEVER IN CASES SUCH AS THE PRESENT THERE IS NO UNDUE ACCUMULATION OF BENEFITS . IN FACT IN THIS CASE THE BENEFIT PAID BY ONE OF THE STATES CONCERNED UNDER ITS LEGISLATION AS SUPPLEMENTED BY COMMUNITY LAW, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE BENEFIT PAID BY THE OTHER STATE CONCERNED ON THE BASIS OF ITS OWN LEGISLATION ALONE, ON THE OTHER HAND, REFER TO ENTIRELY DISTINCT PERIODS . IN PARTICULAR THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY CANNOT CAUSE THE FACT THAT THE INSURED PERSON HAS MAINTAINED THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED IN THE LATTER STATE AND AT THE SAME TIME HAS BECOME ENTITLED TO BENEFIT IN THE FORMER STATE TO BE REGARDED AS AN ACCUMULATION OF BENEFITS CONTRARY TO COMMUNITY RULES . THESE CONSIDERATIONS REMAIN VALID EVEN IN A CASE IN WHICH THE BENEFIT WHICH THE INSURED PERSON OBTAINS FROM THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 27 IN ONE STATE IS MORE THAN THE LOSS WHICH HE WOULD SUFFER IF ANOTHER STATE WERE TO APPLY ARTICLE 28 WITHOUT THE NEED TO HAVE RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 27 . THE INSTITUTION OF A STATE WHOSE LEGISLATION INCLUDES A CEILING FOR BENEFIT ESTABLISHED IN TERMS OF A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PERIODS CANNOT RELY EITHER UPON THE SAID ARTICLES 27 AND 28 AS AN ARGUMENT FOR A PROPORTIONAL CALCULATION OF THE BENEFIT DUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT LEGISLATION, WITH THE OBJECT OF BRINGING THE TOTAL BENEFIT DUE TO A MIGRANT WORKER