) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL OF 14 JUNE 1971 ON THE APPLICATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMES TO EMPLOYED PERSONS AND THEIR FAMILIES MOVING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ( OJ L 149 OF 5 . 7 . 1971, P . 18 ).
2 THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE BELGIAN INSTITUTION RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF PENSIONS TO EMPLOYED PERSONS AND THE SUCCESSORS OF A MIGRANT WORKER IN RELATION TO THE CALCULATION OF THE RETIREMENT PENSION TO WHICH THE LATTER WAS ENTITLED UNTIL THE TIME OF HIS DEATH .
3 THE WORKER, WHO HAD COMPLETED INSURANCE PERIODS IN BELGIUM AND IN ITALY, FULFILLED IN THE FIRST MEMBER STATE ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION FOR ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFIT, WHICH, CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THAT LEGISLATION, AMOUNTED TO BFRS . 34 358 .
4 ON THE OTHER HAND, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH HIS RIGHT TO BENEFIT IN THE SECOND MEMBER STATE, HE HAD TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 45 OF THE REGULATION NO 1408/71, AND FOR THE CALCULATION OF THAT BENEFIT THE PERIODS ACTUALLY COMPLETED IN THE TWO MEMBER STATES WERE AGGREGATED AND THE ITALIAN BENEFIT WAS APPORTIONED .
5 TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE RULE LIMITING THE OVERLAPPING OF BENEFITS PROVIDED IN DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES, LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 46 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71, THE BELGIAN INSTITUTION REDUCED THE BENEFIT TO BFRS 26 427 .
6 THAT SUM REPRESENTS THE THEORETICAL AMOUNT OF THE BELGIAN BENEFIT, THAT IS TO SAY, THE AMOUNT WHICH IS ARRIVED AT IF THE PERIODS COMPLETED IN THE TWO MEMBER STATES HAD BEEN COMPLETED IN BELGIUM, LESS THE ITALIAN BENEFIT CALCULATED AFTER AGGREGATION AND APPORTIONMENT .
7 THIS METHOD OF CALCULATION BY THE BELGIAN INSTITUTION IS INTENDED TO PUT INTO PRACTICE A PRINCIPLE ACCORDING TO WHICH THE MIGRANT WORKER IS ASSURED OF RECEIVING IN TOTAL, BY VIRTUE OF THE VARIOUS PENSIONS GRANTED TO HIM BY THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE HIGHEST BENEFIT THAT HE WOULD HAVE OBTAINED IF HE HAD SPENT HIS WHOLE WORKING LIFE SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF ONE OR OTHER OF THE MEMBER STATES CONCERNED .
8 ACCORDING TO THE SAME PRINCIPLE THAT AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE MAXIMUM THAT HE MAY RECEIVE IN TOTAL BY VIRTUE OF THOSE VARIOUS PENSIONS .
9 THE QUESTIONS REFERRED BY THE NATIONAL COURT ASK WHETHER THIS RULE, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT CONSTITUTES A LIMITATION ON OVERLAPPING, MUST BE APPLIED IN CASES SUCH AS THE PRESENT AND, IF SO, WHETHER IT MUST THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS BEING INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY .
ON THE FIRST QUESTION AND THE FIRST PART OF THE SECOND QUESTION
10 THESE QUESTIONS ASK WHETHER ARTICLE 46 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL IS IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY AND, IF SO, WHETHER IT MUST BE APPLIED TO THE PENSION GRANTED TO A MIGRANT WORKER ON THE BASIS OF INSURANCE PERIODS NOT DUPLICATED BY ANY OF