THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , CONCERNING THE DEFENDANT ' S REFUSAL TO GRANT THE PLAINTIFF A BENEFIT UNDER THE NEDERLANDSE ALGEMENE ARBEIDSONGESCHIKTHEIDSWET ( NETHERLANDS GENERAL LAW ON INCAPACITY FOR WORK ), HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' THE GENERAL LAW ' .
3 AS IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER FOR REFERENCE , THE PLAINTIFF , WHO HAD WORKED IN BELGIUM , GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS AS AN EMPLOYED PERSON , WAS LAST EMPLOYED IN GERMANY WHERE SHE WORKED FROM 1 JANUARY 1975 UNTIL APRIL 1975 . AS SHE DEVELOPED SHOULDER TROUBLE , SHE BECAME INCAPACITATED FOR WORK IN APRIL 1975 AND CONSEQUENTLY RECEIVED FROM THEN ON SICKNESS BENEFITS UNDER GERMAN LEGISLATION . ON 1 AUGUST 1975 SHE RETURNED TO LIVE IN THE NETHERLANDS . ON 15 OCTOBER 1976 THE GERMAN SICKNESS BENEFITS WERE DISCONTINUED ON THE GROUND THAT THE MAXIMUM PERIOD FOR THEIR PAYMENT HAD EXPIRED .
4 THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS IN RECEIPT OF SICKNESS BENEFITS IN GERMANY ON 1 OCTOBER 1976 PROMPTED THE DEFENDANT ' S REFUSAL TO GRANT HER A BENEFIT UNDER THE GENERAL LAW . THAT REFUSAL WAS BASED ON ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) ( C ) OF THE ROYAL DECREE OF 19 OCTOBER 1976 , WHICH HAS RETROACTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 OCTOBER 1976 AND IS FOUNDED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL LAW ; ACCORDING TO THAT PROVISION , AN INSURED PERSON , WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GENERAL LAW , DOES NOT INCLUDE ' A NETHERLANDS RESIDENT WHO RECEIVES UNDER FOREIGN LEGISLATION A SIMILAR BENEFIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) ( E ) . . . ' .
5 THE RAAD VAN BEROEP SOUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE TO ASCERTAIN WHICH LEGISLATION WAS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE , IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ) ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , WHICH PROVIDES THAT A PERSON EMPLOYED IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE IS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF THAT STATE EVEN IF HE RESIDES IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE . THE RAAD VAN BEROEP WAS CONVINCED THAT THAT PROVISION WAS APPLICABLE NOT ONLY TO A PERSON CURRENTLY EMPLOYED , BUT ALSO TO A PERSON LAST EMPLOYED , IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE . HOWEVER , THE NATIONAL COURT WAS UNCERTAIN WHETHER SUCH A PERSON CONTINUED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF THAT STATE EVEN THOUGH A YEAR AND A HALF HAD ELAPSED SINCE THE TERMINATION OF THE ACTIVITY AND OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP AND SINCE THE AWARD OF THE SICKNESS BENEFITS . THAT IS THE ISSUE WITH WHICH THE FIRST OF THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IS CONCERNED .
6 NEXT , THE RAAD VAN BEROEP CONSIDERED THAT , FROM THE STANDPOINT OF NETHERLANDS LAW ALONE , THE PLAINTIFF COULD BE REGARDED AS INSURED ON 1 OCTOBER 1976 UNDER THE GENERAL LAW . THE NATIONAL COURT WAS THEREFORE CONFRONTED WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FACT THAT A PERSON WAS SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF