THAT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PAYABLE HAD THE PERSON CONCERNED CONTINUED TO RESIDE IN THE NETHERLANDS , WOULD ENABLE HIM TO AVOID ANY LOSS OF BENEFITS .
13 IN THAT RESPECT IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT , AS THE COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 24 APRIL 1980 IN CASE 110/79 ( COONAN V INSURANCE OFFICER ( 1980 ) ECR 1445 ), IT IS FOR THE LEGISLATURE OF EACH MEMBER STATE TO LAY DOWN THE CONDITIONS CREATING THE RIGHT OR THE OBLIGATION TO BECOME AFFILIATED TO A SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME OR TO A PARTICULAR BRANCH UNDER SUCH A SCHEME , PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT IN THIS CONNECTION THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN NATIONALS OF THE HOST STATE AND NATIONALS OF THE OTHER MEMBER STATES .
14 IT IS TRUE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 WERE ADOPTED TO IMPLEMENT ARTICLE 51 OF THE EEC TREATY AND MUST BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECTIVE OF ARTICLE 51 , WHICH IS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GREATEST POSSIBLE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR MIGRANT WORKERS , WHICH IS ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY .
15 ARTICLE 51 REQUIRES THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT SUCH MEASURES IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL SECURITY AS ARE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS BY SECURING , INTER ALIA , PAYMENT OF BENEFITS FOR PERSONS RESIDENT IN THE TERRITORIES OF THE MEMBER STATES . THE AIM OF ARTICLES 48 TO 51 WOULD NOT BE ATTAINED IF , AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT , WORKERS WERE TO LOSE THE ADVANTAGES IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL SECURITY GUARANTEED TO THEM BY THE LAWS OF A SINGLE MEMBER STATE .
16 IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS IT IS APPARENT THAT THE PURPOSE OF POINT 2 ( C ) IS TO FACILITATE THE FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES WHO MOVE TO THE NETHERLANDS WHILST THEIR WIVES REMAIN IN THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN , BY ENABLING THE PERIODS DURING WHICH THE WIVES ARE RESIDENT IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT . SUCH PERIODS MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE PERIODS OF THE MARRIAGE AND COINCIDE WITH PERIODS OF INSURANCE COMPLETED BY THE HUSBAND OR PERIODS WHICH ARE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN PURSUANCE OF POINT 2 ( A ). THE OBJECTIVE OF THAT PROVISION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT IT SHOULD ALSO BE POSSIBLE TO TAKE ACCOUNT , BY VIRTUE OF THE COMBINED EFFECT OF POINT 2 ( C ) AND THE NATIONAL TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS , OF PERIODS PRIOR TO THE MARRIAGE . SUCH PERIODS MAY ONLY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IF THE REQUIREMENTS OF POINT 2 ( A ), AS DEFINED BY THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF TODAY ' S DATE IN CASE 284/84 ( SPRUYT V BESTUUR VAN DE SOCIALE VERZEKERINGSBANK ), ARE SATISFIED , WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN RELATION TO PERIODS DURING WHICH A MARRIED WOMAN HAS NEITHER RESIDED NOR PURSUED