3 FROM THE DOCUMENTS PUT BEFORE THE COURT IT APPEARS THAT MR SCALETTA WAS RECOGNIZED AS UNFIT FOR WORK UNTIL 31 OCTOBER 1980 . BEFORE LEAVING ON 16 JUNE 1980 FOR ITALY , WHERE HE INTENDED TO RESIDE PERMANENTLY , HE DID NOT APPLY , AS REQUIRED BY BELGIAN LEGISLATION , FOR AUTHORIZATION FROM THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE COMPETENT SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION OR EVEN NOTIFY THE INSTITUTION OF HIS CHANGE OF ADDRESS . THE BELGIAN INSTITUTION WAS INFORMED ON 4 SEPTEMBER 1980 THAT MR SCALETTA HAD TRANSFERRED HIS RESIDENCE BY THE ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DELLA PREVIDENZA SOCIALE ( NATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE INSTITUTION ) OF TURIN ( ITALY ).
4 BY A LETTER DATED 23 OCTOBER 1980 , THE BELGIAN INSTITUTION INFORMED MR SCALETTA THAT BECAUSE HE HAD FAILED TO OBTAIN AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSFER HIS RESIDENCE TO ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , HE WOULD RECEIVE NO INVALIDITY BENEFITS IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD FROM 16 JUNE TO 4 SEPTEMBER 1980 .
5 MR SCALETTA CHALLENGED THAT DECISION BEFORE THE COURTS . THE COUR DU TRAVAIL , MONS , REFERRED , IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER PRIOR AUTHORIZATION WAS REQUIRED , TO ARTICLE 10 ( 1 ) 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 ( CONSOLIDATED IN OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1980 , C 138 , P . 1 ), WHICH PROVIDES THAT ' INVALIDITY . . . CASH BENEFITS ... ACQUIRED UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ONE OR MORE MEMBER STATES SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY REDUCTION , MODIFICATION , SUSPENSION , WITHDRAWAL OR CONFISCATION BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE RECIPIENT RESIDES IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH THE INSTITUTION RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT IS SITUATED ' .
6 AS TO THE NOTIFICATION OF THE TRANSFER OF RESIDENCE , THE COUR DU TRAVAIL , MONS , CONSIDERED THAT IT WAS GOVERNED BY ARTICLE 59 OF REGULATION NO . 574/72 OF THE COUNCIL , WHICH PROVIDES THAT : ' WHEN A PERSON ENTITLED TO BENEFITS DUE UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ONE OR MORE MEMBER STATES TRANSFERS HIS RESIDENCE FROM THE TERRITORY OF ONE STATE TO THAT OF ANOTHER STATE , HE SHALL NOTIFY THIS FACT TO THE INSTITUTION OR INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH BENEFITS AND TO THE PAYING BODY ' . THE NATIONAL COURT DECIDED TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING A PRELIMINARY RULING FROM THE COURT OF JUSTICE ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS :
' ( 1 ) HOW AND WITHIN WHAT PERIOD MUST THE NOTIFICATION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 59 OF REGULATION NO . 574/72 BE MADE?
( 2)CAN FAILURE TO MAKE THAT NOTIFICATION OR LATENESS IN GIVING IT RESULT IN THE WITHDRAWAL ( IF ONLY TEMPORARILY ) OF THE RIGHT TO BENEFITS , IN PARTICULAR WHEN THE PAYING BODY IS ENTITLED TO VERIFY THAT THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH BENEFITS ARE PAYABLE CONTINUE TO EXIST?
'
THE FIRST QUESTION
7 MR SCALETTA CLAIMS THAT