ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 4 APPLY ONLY TO A CASE WHERE THE BENEFIT THAT IS TO BE REDUCED BECAUSE IT OVERLAPS WITH ANOTHER BENEFIT OR OTHER INCOME , IS AWARDED BY VIRTUE OF AGGREGATION OF INSURANCE PERIODS , THAT IS , IN OTHER WORDS , DID THE BELGIAN INSTITUTION HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A FRACTION AND NOT THE WHOLE OF THE ITALIAN PENSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE BELGIAN BENEFIT ALTHOUGH THAT BENEFIT WAS ACQUIRED WITHOUT HAVING TO APPLY REGULATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY?
' '
FIRST QUESTION
9THE COURT HAS ALREADY HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 6 DECEMBER 1973 IN CASE 140/73 DIRECTION REGIONALE DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE DE LA REGION PARISIENNE AND CAISSE REGIONALE D ' ASSURANCE MALADIE DE PARIS V CARMELA MANCUSO AND CAISSE NATIONALE D ' ASSURANCE VIEILLESSE DES TRAVAILLEURS SALARIES ( 1973 ) ECR 1449 THAT THE APPLICATION BY ANALOGY OF ARTICLE 27 AND 28 OF REGULATION NO 3 TO THE CASES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 26 ( 1 ) IMPLIES THAT BENEFITS MAY ONLY BE APPORTIONED IF IT HAS BEEN NECESSARY , IN ORDER TO GIVE RISE TO ENTITLEMENT , TO AGGREGATE BEFOREHAND THE PERIODS COMPLETED UNDER DIFFERENT LEGISLATIONS .
10THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 27 AND 28 OF REGULATION NO 3 DO NOT HAVE BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF A PENSION ACQUIRED IN PURSUANCE OF A NATIONAL LAW ALONE .
11ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ) OF THE SAID REGULATION READS ' ' PROVISIONS IN THE LEGISLATION OF ONE MEMBER STATE FOR THE REDUCTION OR SUSPENSION OF BENEFIT WHERE THERE IS PLURALITY WITH OTHER SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS , OR OTHER INCOME , OR BECAUSE OF GAINFULL EMPLOYMENT , SHALL APPLY TO A BENEFICIARY EVEN IN RESPECT OF BENEFITS ACQUIRED UNDER A SCHEME IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , OR IN RESPECT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM , OR EMPLOYMENT IN , THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE ; PROVIDED THAT THIS RULE SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE BENEFITS OF THE SAME KIND ARE ACQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 26 AND 28 OF THIS REGULATION . ' '
12AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY HELD , WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ITS JUDGMENT OF 15 MAY 1974 IN CASE 154/73 BESTUUR VAN DE NIEUWE ALGEMENE BEDRIJFSVERENIGING V H . W . KAUFMANN ( 1974 ) ECR 517 THIS ARTICLE , INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 48 TO 51 OF THE TREATY , IS THE COUNTERWEIGHT TO THE ADVANTAGES WHICH REGULATIONS NOS 3 AND 4 PROCURE FOR WORKERS BY ENABLING THEM TO CLAIM THE SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY LAWS OF SEVERAL MEMBER STATES AND ITS PURPOSE IS TO PREVENT THEM FROM DERIVING FROM THAT APPLICATION ADVANTAGES WHICH THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION CONSIDERS EXCESSIVE .
13THEREFORE THE RESTRICTIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ) ONLY APPLY TO INSURED PERSONS IN SO FAR AS THE BENEFITS ACQUIRED BY APPLYING THOSE REGULATIONS ARE CONCERNED .
14ON THE OTHER HAND CONSIDERATION OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 3 SHOWS