TO THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PAID AND TO THE BENEFITS TO WHICH THE INSURED PERSONS WERE ENTITLED ;
- THE CLAIMANT , HOWEVER , WAS NOT OBLIGED TO PAY CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH HE WAS ABROAD ;
- THE CLAIMANT HAD CONTRIBUTED TO THE SCHEME , FIRST FOR NINE YEARS AS AN EMPLOYED PERSON AND SUBSEQUENTLY UNTIL HIS DEATH , THAT IS , FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHTEEN YEARS , AS A SELF-EMPLOYED PERSON ;
- THE RATE OF SICKNESS BENEFIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SCHEME , WHICH THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE CLAIMED WHEN HE FELL ILL BUT FOR THE DISQUALIFICATION CLAUSE , WAS FIXED IN TERMS OF THE RATE OF THE RETIREMENT PENSION TO WHICH HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED IF HE HAD NOT CONTINUED TO WORK AFTER REACHING THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE YEARS ;
- THE CLAIMANT UNDER THOSE PROVISIONS COULD ONLY HAVE CLAIMED THE FULL RATE OF SICKNESS BENEFITS IN CASH BY AGGREGATING THE CONTRIBUTIONS PAID BY HIM OR ON HIS BEHALF WHEN HE HAD THE STATUS OF AN EMPLOYED PERSON WITH HIS CONTRIBUTIONS AS A SELF-EMPLOYED PERSON .
15 A PERSON IN SUCH A SITUATION FULFILS THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS SET OUT IN SUBPARAGRAPH ( II ) IN THAT HE 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 THE WHOLE WORKING POPULATION ' .
16 MORE PARTICULARLY , WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST CONDITION , THE INSURANCE IS ' COMPULSORY ' , SINCE THE PERSON CONCERNED IS INSURED UNDER THE RELEVANT SCHEME IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS WISHES AND THE INSURANCE DOES NOT CEASE TO BE COMPULSORY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT DURING CERTAIN LIMITED PERIODS , SUCH AS A STAY ABROAD , PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS IS OPTIONAL FOR HIM .
17 CONSEQUENTLY THE POINT TO BE SETTLED AMOUNTS TO WHETHER THE PERSONS CONCERNED ALSO FULFIL THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE FIRST INDENT OF SUBPARAGRAPH ( II ) NAMELY WHETHER ' ( SUCH A PERSON ) CAN BE IDENTIFIED AS AN EMPLOYED PERSON BY VIRTUE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH SCHEME IS ADMINISTERED OR FINANCED ' , ALWAYS BEARING IN MIND THAT , HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE , THIS QUESTION NEED ONLY BE CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO THE CONTINGENCY OF ' SICKNESS ' .
18 IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISREGARD THE FACT THAT REGULATION NO 1408/71 , WHICH WAS ADOPTED BEFORE THE ACCESSION OF THE NEW MEMBER STATES , WAS NOT FORMULATED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE RESPECTIVE LEGISLATIONS OF THE SAID STATES .
19 THE REGULATION MUST BE INTERPRETED ABOVE ALL IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPIRIT AND OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TREATY .
20 IN THIS CONNEXION IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT , AS THE COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY HELD , THE COMMUNITY RULES ON SOCIAL