EEC TREATY A QUESTION AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 48 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 .
2 THE QUESTION AROSE IN THE COURSE OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN AN ITALIAN NATIONAL , NOW LIVING IN ITALY , AND THE INSTITUT NATIONAL D ' ASSURANCE MALADIE-INVALIDITE ( NATIONAL SICKNESS AND INVALIDITY INSURANCE INSTITUTION ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE BELGIAN INSTITUTION ' ' )), THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION IN BELGIUM FOR SICKNESS AND INVALIDITY INSURANCE . THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION , WHO WAS DECLARED UNFIT FOR WORK AND IS IN RECEIPT OF ALLOWANCES UNDER THE ITALIAN SCHEME , CLAIMS AN APPORTIONED INVALIDITY PENSION UNDER THE BELGIAN SCHEME . HIS APPLICATION FOR SUCH A PENSION WAS REFUSED BECAUSE THE TOTAL DURATION OF THE PERIODS DURING WHICH MR MALFITANO WAS AFFILIATED TO THE BELGIAN SICKNESS AND INVALIDITY INSURANCE SCHEME WAS LESS THAN ONE YEAR , THE PERIOD SPECIFIED BY ARTICLE 48 ( 1 ) OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REGULATION .
3 MR MALFITANO CHALLENGED THE REFUSAL TO PAY HIM A PENSION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DU TRAVAIL , CHARLEROI . BY AN INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT THE TRIBUNAL DECLARED THAT THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ARTICLE SET TWO CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A RIGHT TO BENEFITS : ONE YEAR ' S INSURANCE OR RESIDENCE , AND COMPLETION OF THE QUALIFYING PERIOD LAID DOWN BY THE APPLICABLE LEGISLATION . IT WAS IN SOME DOUBT AS TO THE MEANING OF THE CONDITION OF RESIDENCE IMPOSED UNDER THE BELGIAN SYSTEM AND ORDERED THE RE-OPENING OF THE ORAL PROCEDURE TO ENABLE THE BELGIAN INSTITUTION TO PRESENT ARGUMENT ON THAT POINT .
4 SUBSEQUENTLY , THE TRIBUNAL DU TRAVAIL DECIDED TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS AND REFER TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION :
' ' IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT BELGIAN LEGISLATION RELATING TO COMPULSORY INSURANCE AGAINST SICKNESS AND INVALIDITY DOES NOT MAKE RESIDENCE A SUFFICIENT CONDITION FOR THE GRANT OF BENEFITS OR FOR QUALIFICATION FOR THAT PURPOSE , DOES ARTICLE 48 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 MEAN THAT , WHERE A PERIOD OF INSURANCE OR RESIDENCE IN BELGIUM AMOUNTS TO LESS THAN ONE YEAR BUT ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS IS ACQUIRED BY COMPLETION OF THE REQUIRED QUALIFYING PERIOD , THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION IS BOUND TO GRANT BENEFITS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PERIOD OF INSURANCE OR RESIDENCE?
' '
5 THE QUESTION HAS TWO ASPECTS WHICH FALL TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY . IN THE FIRST PLACE , THE TRIBUNAL DU TRAVAIL ASKS HOW RELEVANT THE CONCEPT OF PERIODS OF RESIDENCE IS TO THE DECISION IT IS CALLED UPON TO DELIVER .
6 IN REPLY TO THAT PART OF THE QUESTION IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT THE CONCEPT OF ' ' PERIOD OF RESIDENCE ' ' WAS INTRODUCED INTO REGULATION NO 1408/71 ON THE ACCESSION TO THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES OF CERTAIN MEMBER STATES IN WHICH THE SICKNESS INSURANCE SCHEME MAKES THE GRANT AND THE AMOUNT OF BENEFIT SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF PERIODS OF RESIDENCE . THE CONCEPT IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN