From 1 February 2014 , Martin-Meat ’ s workers again carried out that work on the same premises . 87 Therefore , it must be determined whether the non-replacement condition is satisfied in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings during the period concerned , and whether and to what extent the location of the registered offices of the employers concerned or the existence of possible personal and organisational connections between them are relevant in such a context . 88 According to the Court ’ s settled case-law , in interpreting a provision of EU law , it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part ( judgment of 21 September 2017 , Commission v Germany , C ‑ 616 / 15 , EU : C : 2017 : 721 , paragraph 43 and the case-law cited ) . 89 As regards , first of all , the wording of Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 , in the version in force at the beginning of the period concerned , it provided that ‘ a person who pursues an activity as an employed person in a Member State on behalf of an employer which normally carries out its activities there and who is posted by that employer to another Member State to perform work on that employer ’ s behalf shall continue to be subject to the legislation of the first Member State , provided that the anticipated duration of such work does not exceed 24 months and that he / she is not sent to replace another person ’ . 90 Therefore , it follows from the wording of Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 and , in particular , the expression ‘ provided that ’ that the fact that a posted worker replaces another person prevents that replacement worker from remaining subject to the legislation of the Member State in which his employer usually carries out its activities and that the non-replacement condition applies to it in a cumulative manner , also laid down in that provision , relating to the maximum period of the employment concerned . 91 Furthermore , the absence of any express reference in the wording of that provision to the registered offices of the respective employers or to any personal or organisational connections between them tends to suggest that such facts are not relevant for the purposes of interpreting that provision . 92 Next , as regards the context of which Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 forms part , it must be observed that , according to the heading of that article , the rules which are laid down therein , including those in paragraph 1 thereof , are ‘ special rules ’ relating to the determination of the social security legislation applicable to persons covered by the scope of that regulation . 93 As is clear from Article 11 ( 3 ) ( a ) of that regulation , that article being concerned with ‘ General rules ’ , persons , such as the workers at issue in the main proceedings , pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed persons in a Member State are subject to the legislation of the State in which they pursue that activity . 94 Likewise , it follows from recitals 17 and 18 of Regulation No 883 / 2004 that , ‘ as a general rule ’ , the legislation applicable to persons pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person on the territory of a Member State is that of the latter and that it is necessary to ‘ derogate from the general rule ’ in specific situations which justify other criteria of applicability . 95 It follows that , in so far as Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 constitutes derogation from the general rule which applies in order to determine the legislation applicable to persons pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in a Member State , it must be strictly interpreted . 96 Finally , with regard to the objectives of Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 and , more generally , the legal framework of which that provision is part , it must be held that , while Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 establishes a specific rule for the determination of the legislation applicable in the case of posted workers , that special situation which , in principle , justifies another criterion of applicability , the fact remains that the EU also intended to prevent that special rule from benefiting workers posted successively who carry out the same work . 97 Furthermore , to interpret Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 differently according to the location of the registered office of the employers concerned or the existence of personal or organisational links between them could undermine the objective pursued by the EU legislature , in principle , to subject workers to the legislation of the Member State in which the person concerned pursues his activity . 98 In particular , as is clear from recital 17 of Regulation No 883 / 2004 , it is with a view to guaranteeing the equality of treatment of all persons occupied in the territory of a Member State as effectively as possible that it is considered appropriate to determine as the legislation applicable , as a general rule , that of the Member State in which the person concerned pursues his activity as an employed or self-employed person .