THE ORPHAN PERMANENTLY RESIDES OR IS BEING BROUGHT UP IN THE TERRITORY OF ONE OF THESE STATES, FAMILY ALLOWANCES ARE DUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGISLATION OF THAT MEMBER STATE .
5 THE SPECIAL FEATURE OF THE LEGAL SITUATION WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE DECISION TO REFER THE CASE FOR A RULING IS THAT THE DECEASED WORKER WAS SUCCESSIVELY EMPLOYED AND INSURED IN ITALY AND IN BELGIUM .
6 HOWEVER, THE INSURANCE PERIOD COMPLETED UNDER THE ITALIAN LEGISLATION WAS LESS THAN THE MINIMUM OF SIX MONTHS NECESSARY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF ANY RIGHT AT ALL AND THE SITUATION CANNOT BE REMEDIED BY CALLING IN AID THE PRINCIPLE OF AGGREGATION .
7 IN FACT, AS THE ITALIAN LEGISLATION PROVIDES FOR THE ALLOWANCES IN QUESTION TO BE PAID IN RESPECT OF THE ORPHAN OF A WORKER IN THE FORM OF SUPPLEMENTS OR INCREASES IN THE WIDOW' S PENSION, ARTICLE 28 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 4 IS APPLICABLE .
8 AS REGARDS SURVIVOR' S PENSIONS, THAT PROVISION STIPULATES THAT : " IF THE INSURANCE PERIODS ... COMPLETED UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ONE MEMBER STATE DO NOT TOGETHER TOTAL SIX MONTHS NO BENEFIT SHALL BE GRANTED UNDER THE SAID LEGISLATION " AND THUS EXCLUDES ANY POSSIBILITY OF AGGREGATION .
9 THE MAIN POINT OF THE QUESTIONS PUT BY THE CONSEIL DE PRUD'HOMMES D' APPEL DE MONS IS THEREFORE WHETHER THE PHRASE " CAME UNDER THE LEGISLATION " USED IN ARTICLE 42 ( 6 ) OF REGULATION NO 3 CAN REFER TO THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE WHICH WHEN APPLIED HAS NO EFFECT ON THE ACQUISITION OF A RIGHT TO BENEFITS .
10 THE PROBLEM OF INTERPRETATION THUS RAISED CAN ONLY BE RESOLVED IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 48 TO 51 OF THE TREATY, WHICH FORM THE BASIS OF REGULATION NO 3 .
11 THOSE PROVISIONS, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO ENSURE THAT THE MIGRANT WORKER AND HIS DEPENDANTS OBTAIN THE BENEFITS WHICH CORRESPOND TO THE VARIOUS PERIODS OF EMPLOYMENT AND INSURANCE COMPLETED BY HIM, DO NOT ALLOW REGULATION NO 3 TO BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO DEPRIVE THOSE CONCERNED OF CERTAIN BENEFITS BY REASON OF THEIR PLACE OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE .
12 AS REGARDS IN PARTICULAR THE SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY ARTICLE 42 ( 6 ): TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT NOT ONLY LEGISLATION UNDER WHICH THE DECEASED WORKER COMPLETED THE MAIN PART OF HIS CAREER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES BUT ALSO OTHER LEGISLATION TO WHICH HE WAS TEMPORARILY SUBJECT WITHOUT ITS HAVING ANY POSSIBLE PRACTICAL EFFECTS FOR HIM, WOULD AMOUNT TO DEPRIVING AN ORPHAN RESIDING PERMANENTLY IN THE TERRITORY OF THIS LATTER STATE OF ANY FAMILY ALLOWANCE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RIGHT TO BENEFIT TO WHICH SUCH ALLOWANCE COULD BE ATTACHED .
13 SUCH A RESULT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLES 48 TO 51 OF THE TREATY AND IN PARTICULAR TO THE OBJECT OF ARTICLE 42 ( 6 ) OF REGULATION NO 3 WHICH IS TO ENSURE IN