BELGIAN INSTITUTION SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND THAT MRS BACCINI ' S UNFITNESS FOR WORK HAD COME TO AN END AND THE BELGIAN INVALIDITY BENEFITS CEASED TO BE PAID TO HER . THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 141 OF THE BELGIAN ROYAL DECREE OF 20 DECEMBER 1963 ON EMPLOYMENT AND REDUNDANCY , AS AMENDED ON 11 SEPTEMBER 1969 , PROVIDES THAT ' ' A WORKER IN RECEIPT OF BENEFITS UNDER A BELGIAN SICKNESS AND INVALIDITY INSURANCE SCHEME SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT FOR UNFITNESS FOR WORK ' ' AND MRS BACCINI , WHO WAS NO LONGER IN RECEIPT OF A BELGIAN INVALIDITY BENEFIT , WAS GRANTED BELGIAN UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT WHICH SHE DREW FROM 28 APRIL 1975 TO 4 JUNE 1975 AND THEN AGAIN FROM 1 SEPTEMBER 1977 .
7 AS AMENDED , THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 141 OF THE BELGIAN ROYAL DECREE OF 20 DECEMBER 1963 PROVIDES THAT ' ' A WORKER IN RECEIPT OF BENEFITS UNDER A FOREIGN SICKNESS AND INVALIDITY INSURANCE SCHEME FOR INCAPACITY FOR WORK NOT CAUSED BY AN ACCIDENT AT WORK OR BY OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT FOR UNFITNESS FOR WORK IF THE DEGREE OF THAT INCAPACITY IS 50% OR MORE ' ' . ON THE BASIS OF THOSE PROVISIONS ON 8 DECEMBER 1978 THE DIRECTOR OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE OFFICE NATIONAL DE L ' EMPLOI AT LA LOUVIERE , RELYING ON THE FACT THAT MRS BACCINI WAS RECEIVING AN INVALIDITY PENSION WHICH THE ITALIAN INSTITUTION HAD GRANTED TO HER , REFUSED HER BELGIAN UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT FROM 28 APRIL TO 4 JUNE 1975 AND THEN FROM 1 SEPTEMBER 1977 AND REQUIRED HER TO REPAY THE BENEFITS WHICH SHE HAD RECEIVED DURING THOSE PERIODS .
8 MRS BACCINI INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THAT DECISION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DU TRAVAIL ( LABOUR TRIBUNAL ), CHARLEROI , AND THEN BROUGHT PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF APPEAL BEFORE THE COUR DU TRAVAIL , MONS , WHICH ASKS IN SUBSTANCE :
FIRST , WHETHER ARTICLE 51 OF THE EEC TREATY AND REGULATIONS NOS 1408/71 AND 574/72 MUST BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AIMS OF THE TREATY TO REFUSE A MIGRANT WORKER UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PURSUANT TO RULES OF NATIONAL LAW AGAINST THE OVERLAPPING OF BENEFITS IN A STATE IN WHICH HE IS NO LONGER RECOGNIZED AS UNFIT FOR WORK ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS IN RECEIPT OF AN APPORTIONED INVALIDITY PENSION FROM ANOTHER MEMBER STATE WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED WITH REGARD TO THE COMMUNITY REGULATIONS ;
SECONDLY , IF THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS AFFIRMATIVE , WHETHER THAT SITUATION IS ' ' NOT ITSELF THE RESULT OF THE ENJOYMENT OF THE INVALIDITY PENSION UNDER REGULATION NO 1408/71 SO THAT THE REGULATION DOES NOT PROVIDE THE SECURITY SPECIFIED BY ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY AND IS CONTRARY TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TREATY ' ' .
9 BOTH THE WORDING OF THE FIRST QUESTION PUT BY THE MONS COURT AND THE GROUNDS OF ITS JUDGMENT INDICATE THAT THE