1 . A RESTRICTION OF THE FIELD OF APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 52 RATIONE PERSONAE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED FROM THE WORDING OF THE PROVISION ITSELF . INDEED, ACCORDING TO THE WORDING OF THAT PROVISION, IT IS ONLY NECESSARY FOR THE PERSON CONCERNED TO BE ' IN RECEIPT OF BENEFIT UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ONE MEMBER STATE, IN RESPECT OF AN INJURY SUSTAINED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE ' AND TO BE ' ENTITLED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION FOR THAT INJURY FROM A THIRD PARTY IN THE LATTER STATE'S TERRITORY '. THERE IS NO REASON TO RESTRICT THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 52 . BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 4(1 ), REGULATION NO 3 IS APPLICABLE TO ' WAGE-EARNERS OR ASSIMILATED WORKERS WHO ARE OR HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF ONE OR MORE OF THE MEMBER STATES AND ARE NATIONALS OF A MEMBER STATE OR ARE STATELESS PERSONS OR REFUGEES PERMANENTLY RESIDENT IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE, AS ALSO TO THE MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES AND THEIR SURVIVORS '. THE GENERAL WORDING OF THIS PROVISION SHOWS THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE REGULATION IS LIMITED NEITHER TO WORKERS WHO HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN SEVERAL STATES NOR TO WORKERS WHO ARE OR HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN ONE STATE WHILE RESIDING OR HAVING RESIDED IN ANOTHER . THE FOREGOING REASONING IS CONFIRMED BY A SERIES OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 3; IN PARTICULAR, ARTICLE 19(1 ) WHICH, AS THE COURT HAS HELD PREVIOUSLY, IS APPLICABLE TO WORKERS WHO, FOR WHATEVER REASON, ARE TEMPORARILY RESIDENT IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .
2 . IT SHOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED WHETHER ARTICLE 52 IS NOT INAPPLICABLE RATIONE MATERIAE, FOR THE REASON THAT ACCIDENTS OCCURRING IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED BY THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK, MAASTRICHT, ARE NOT INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS . ARTICLE 52 APPLIES WHERE THE INJURED PARTY HAS RECEIVED ' BENEFIT ' UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE . ARTICLE 1(S ) OF REGULATION NO 3 GIVES A GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE TERM ' BENEFITS '. ARTICLE 2(1 ) REFERS TO A SERIES OF SPECIFIC BENEFITS, GOVERNED BY NATIONAL LEGISLATION, TO WHICH THE REGULATION APPLIES SHOULD THE OCCASION ARISE . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ARTICLE 52 MUST BE REGARDED AS BEING APPLICABLE, SINCE UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE THE PERSON IN QUESTION HAS RECEIVED BENEFIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ONE OF THE HEADINGS LISTED IN ARTICLE 2(1 ) MENTIONED ABOVE . CONSEQUENTLY THE SECOND QUESTION ASKED BY THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK, MAASTRICHT, MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE .