INSURANCE REGULATION ).
THIS ARTICLE CONCERNS THE BENEFITS WHICH THE PENSION INSURANCE ORGANIZATIONS MUST PAY TO INSURED PERSONS WHO SUFFER FROM TUBERCULOSIS . THE FIRST QUESTION ASKS WHETHER ARTICLES 26 AND 27 OF REGULATION NO 3 ARE APPLICABLE BY ANALOGY TO BENEFITS SUCH AS THOSE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1244A OF THE RVO .
2 THIS ARTICLE WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE RVO BY ARTICLE 31 OF THE LAW OF 23 JULY 1959 CONCERNING ASSISTANCE IN CASES OF TUBERCULOSIS . IN ORDER TO " ENCOURAGE AND ENSURE THE RECOVERY OF INVALIDS " IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ), THIS LAW PROVIDED FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT, AID TO INTEGRATION INTO WORKING LIFE, ECONOMIC AID AND AID OF A PROPHYLACTIC NATURE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATIONS TO ALL PERSONS SUFFERING FROM TUBERCULOSIS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY CANNOT RECEIVE THE NECESSARY ASSISTANCE BY ANY OTHER MEANS .
ON THE OTHER HAND, BY REFERRING SOLELY TO THOSE TUBERCULOSIS SUFFERERS WHO ARE INSURED WITH AND RECEIVE PENSIONS FROM PENSION INSURANCE ORGANIZATIONS, AND TO THEIR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN, THE INTRODUCTION OF ARTICLE 1244A INTO THE RVO BY THE ABOVEMENTIONED ARTICLE 31 COMPELLED THE PENSION INSURANCE ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE SUCH PERSONS WITH, IN PARTICULAR, THE NECESSARY MEDICAL TREATMENT AND A TEMPORARY ALLOWANCE EVEN WHERE, CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1236 OF THE RVO CONCERNING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH BENEFITS ARE PAID BY THE PENSION INSURANCE ORGANIZATIONS OF WORKERS, THERE IS NO REASON TO FEAR THAT THE INVALID' S EMPLOYMENT WILL BE JEOPARDIZED OR WHERE NO CHANCE EXISTS OF MAINTAINING, IMPROVING OR RE-ESTABLISHING SUCH EMPLOYMENT BY MEANS OF THE MEASURES PROVIDED FOR .
3 THE FILE SHOWS THAT THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION, A GERMAN SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATION, WAS REFUSED BY A GERMAN PENSION INSURANCE ORGANIZATION THE REIMBURSEMENT OF HOSPITAL EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE TREATMENT OF AN ITALIAN WORKER SUFFERING FROM TUBERCULOSIS, ON THE GROUND THAT ARTICLE 1244A OF THE RVO WAS NOT APPLICABLE SINCE THE INSURANCE PERIODS COMPLETED IN GERMANY BY THE WORKER IN QUESTION WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE CONDITION OF SIXTY MONTHS' AFFILIATION LAID DOWN THEREIN .
IN ORDER TO SETTLE THE CASE PENDING BEFORE IT, THE GERMAN COURT MUST DECIDE WHETHER THE AFFILIATION PERIODS PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED BY THE WORKER IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN APPLYING ARTICLE 1244A OF THE RVO .
TO THIS END, THEREFORE, THE BUNDESSOZIALGERICHT MUST CLASSIFY THE BENEFITS PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 1244A OF THE RVO IN THE LIGHT OF THE CRITERIA WHICH DEFINE THE SCOPE OF REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL CONCERNING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS .
WITHOUT BEING EMPOWERED TO CLASSIFY THE ABOVEMENTIONED PROVISION OF THE RVO IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, THE COURT MAY, HOWEVER, PROVIDE THE NATIONAL COURT WITH FACTORS OF INTERPRETATION DEPENDING ON COMMUNITY LAW WHICH MIGHT BE USEFUL TO IT IN EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF THAT PROVISION .
4 UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 1 ( B ), REGULATION NO 3 APPLIES TO ALL