IF THEY ARE HIGHER THAN THE BENEFITS GRANTED BY THE MEMBER STATE TO WHOSE TERRITORY THE ORPHANS ' RESIDENCE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED .
6 THE BUNDESSOZIALGERICHT HESITATES TO APPLY THAT INTERPRETATION TO THE CASE BROUGHT BEFORE IT . IT STATES THAT THIS CASE DOES NOT CONCERN AN ORPHAN WHOSE RESIDENCE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED INASMUCH AS THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION HAS ALWAYS RESIDED IN ITALY WHERE HIS FATHER WAS SUBJECT TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME BEFORE GOING TO WORK IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND WHERE THE FAMILY ALLOWANCES WERE GRANTED BY THE ITALIAN INSTITUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 77 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 . IN ADDITION THE BUNDESSOZIALGERICHT POINTS OUT THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ITALIAN SCHEME ALONE TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY BENEFIT GRANTED UNDER THE GERMAN LEGISLATION , SEEMS , IN ITS VIEW , TO CONFORM TO THE DECLARED AIM OF THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE , WHICH IS TO ACHIEVE A QUICK AND SIMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE .
7 IN THE FIRST PLACE IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RESIDENCE OF AN ORPHAN HAS ALWAYS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN A MEMBER STATE OR WHETHER IT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED THERE IS OF NO RELEVANCE FOR THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 77 AND 78 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 . INDEED , AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY OBSERVED , IN RELATION TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES , IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 12 JUNE 1980 ( CASE 733/79 LATERZA ( 1980 ) ECR 1915 ), THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THAT REGULATION REQUIRE THAT , IF THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS PROVIDED BY THE STATE OF RESIDENCE IS LESS THAN THAT OF THE BENEFITS AWARDED BY THE OTHER STATE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THEM THE WORKER OR HIS DEPENDANT SHALL CONTINUE TO BE ENTITLED TO THE GREATER AMOUNT AND SHALL RECEIVE FROM THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION OF THAT LATTER STATE A SUPPLEMENT TO THE BENEFIT EQUAL TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO AMOUNTS .
8 THOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT THE CONCURRENT GRANT OF BENEFITS FROM DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES MAY , IN THE CASE OF ORPHANS ' BENEFITS , GIVE RISE TO DIFFICULTIES OF A PRACTICAL NATURE WHICH , AS YET , HAVE NOT BEEN ENVISAGED BY THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , THAT FACT CANNOT , IN ITSELF , JUSTIFY AN INTERPRETATION OF THAT REGULATION ACCORDING TO WHICH THE APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE PREVENTS THE PAYMENT OF MORE FAVOURABLE BENEFITS DUE UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE ALONE .
9 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONSIDERATIONS REFERRED TO BY THE NATIONAL COURT ARE NOT SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY A DEPARTURE FROM THE CASE-LAW CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY AND REGULATION NO 1408/71 .
10 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , IN REPLY TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED IT SHOULD BE STATED THAT ARTICLES 77 AND 78 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT , WHERE A DECEASED FATHER HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF MORE THAN ONE MEMBER