1.

The defendant may only derive rights from Regulation No 1408/71 if she is one of the persons to whom it applies. In this connexion it is important that she was insured against sickness during her stay in the United Kingdom and obviously also received corresponding benefits. It is however also of importance that in the United Kingdom, and this may be deduced from the observations made by the representative of the British Government and from the statements of the Commission, that the rules relating to the sickness insurance scheme are such that, within the context of the Act of 1946 setting up the National Health Service, they apply to any person who is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom irrespective of whether he is or is not gainfully occupied and that they may at the discretion of the administration also be extended to visitors from other countries. In such a case it is necessary to refer to the definition of the concept of ‘worker’ in order to determine to which persons Regulation No 1408/71 applies; this definition is contained in Article 1 (a) (ii), according to which a worker is any person ‘who is compulsorily insured for one or more of the contingencies covered by the branches of social security dealt with in this regulation, under a social security scheme for all residents or for the whole working population if such person: — can be identified as an employed person by virtue of the manner in which such scheme is administered or financed, or — failing such criteria, is insured for some other contingency specified in Annex V under a scheme for employed persons, either compulsorily or on an optional continued basis’. In addition, it is necessary to refer to Annex VI in the version applicable after the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community by means of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments to the Treaties since it has already been pointed out in Case 17/76 (Brack v Insurance Officer, judgment of 29 September 1976 [1976] ECR 1449) that the purpose of this annex is to clarify the scope of Article 1 (a) (ii) vis-a-vis British legislation. It provides quite clearly that: ‘All persons required to pay contributions as employed workers shall be regarded as workers for the purposes of Article 1 (a) (ii) of the Regulation’. Accordingly, it may only be accepted that au pair girls are persons to whom Regulation No 1408/71 applies if these conditions are fulfilled in relation to them and to their sickness insurance. In my opinion the reference by the British Government to the fact that the conditions relating to medical treatment for au pair girls are generally the same as those relating to persons who stay in the United Kingdom as visitors is of little help with regard to the examination of this question. Likewise, the reference by the Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladie d'Eure-et-Loir, the plaintiff, to a European Agreement of 1969 on Au Pair Placement and the definitions contained therein is of no assistance since we do not know whether in the present case these conditions are actually fulfilled. It is necessary, rather, to discover in the main action whether in view of the conditions laid down in Annex V to Regulation No 1408/71 the defendant in the main action was in the present case required to pay contributions as an employed worker. In this connexion, in accordance with the statements of the Commission, by virtue of regulations on contributions issued in 1975 benefits in kind (for example board and lodging) as well as payments of up to £ 8 per week are apparently not taken into consideration. The result of this examination determines whether it was or was not necessary to regard the defendant, even as an au pair girl, as a worker within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71 and whether it is possible to take into consideration the rights acquired by her in the United Kingdom, for example within the context of the above-mentioned Article 18.