.
24 BY VIRTUE OF THAT PROVISION INSURANCE PERIODS COMPLETED IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT , TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY , FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE RIGHT TO INVALIDITY BENEFITS , AS THOUGH THEY HAD BEEN COMPLETED UNDER BRITISH LEGISLATION .
25 IT FOLLOWS THAT , IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 18 OF THE REGULATION , THOSE INSURANCE PERIODS MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE RIGHT TO SICKNESS BENEFIT , IN SO FAR AS THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION IN QUESTION MAKES THE RIGHT TO INVALIDITY BENEFITS CONDITIONAL UPON ENTITLEMENT TO SICKNESS BENEFIT .
26 NEVERTHELESS , THE BRITISH INSTITUTION ARGUED THAT , NOT BEING RESIDENT IN GREAT BRITAIN DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION , THE CLAIMANT HAD NOT SUBMITTED A CLAIM FOR SICKNESS BENEFIT IN THE REQUIRED MANNER AND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD , WHICH BENEFIT , EVEN IF HE WAS ENTITLED TO IT , COULD NOT BE PAID TO HIM AS HE WAS RESIDING OUTSIDE GREAT BRITAIN .
27 ARTICLE 36 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 574/72 OF THE COUNCIL OF 21 MARCH 1972 ( OJ , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1972 ( I ), P . 159 ) FIXING THE PROCEDURE FOR IMPLEMENTING REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1408/71 PROVIDES THAT IN ORDER TO RECEIVE BENEFITS UNDER ARTICLES 40 TO 51 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , EXCEPT IN THE CASES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 35 OF REGULATION NO 574/72 , ' THE PERSON CONCERNED SHALL SUBMIT A CLAIM TO THE INSTITUTION OF THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR BY THE LEGISLATION ADMINISTERED BY THAT INSTITUTION ' . . . ' A CLAIM FOR BENEFITS SENT TO THE INSTITUTION OF ONE MEMBER STATE SHALL AUTOMATICALLY INVOLVE THE CONCURRENT AWARD OF BENEFITS UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ALL THE MEMBER STATES IN QUESTION WHOSE CONDITIONS THE CLAIMANT SATISFIES . . . ' .
28 THAT PROVISION WAS LAID DOWN WITH THE AIM OF SIMPLIFYING ADMINISTRATION IN ORDER TO EXEMPT MIGRANT WORKERS , WHO HAVE RIGHTS TO ASSERT IN DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES , FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO LODGE WITH THE INSTITUTIONS IN EACH OF THOSE STATES AN APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT OF THE BENEFITS WHICH THEY MAY CLAIM .
29 EVEN IF IT IS TRUE THAT THAT PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY TO SICKNESS BENEFIT , IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE AIM OF ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY AND TO THE GENERAL SCHEME OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 THAT A WORKER WHO HAS SUBMITTED A CLAIM FOR INVALIDITY BENEFIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT PROVISION SHOULD HAVE HIS CLAIM REFUSED ON THE GROUND THAT , AT AN EARLIER STAGE , HE HAD NOT SUBMITTED A CLAIM FOR SICKNESS BENEFIT TO THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .
30 THEREFORE , ARTICLE 45 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 MUST BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN THAT WHERE THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE MAKES THE ACQUISITION OF A RIGHT TO INVALIDITY BENEFIT CONDITIONAL UPON THE PERSON CONCERNED HAVING BEEN ENTITLED TO SICKNESS BENEFIT