PERIODS COVERED BY CONTRIBUTIONS IN OTHER MEMBER STATES - WHICH MAY IN FACT BE TO THEIR ADVANTAGE - BUT THE COUNTERPART OF THAT OPTION IS THAT THEY MAY BE REQUIRED TO BUY-IN THOSE PERIODS BEFORE THE GERMAN PERIODS LYING FURTHER BACK IN TIME . THAT IS CLEARLY EXPRESSED AT THE BEGINNING OF PARA- GRAPH 9 WHICH STATES : ' ' REGULATION ( NO 1408/71 ) SHALL NOT AFFECT . . . ARTICLE 49A ( 2 ) OF THE CLERICAL STAFF PENSION REFORM LAW . ' ' THE COMMISSION HAS STATED THAT IT HAS ACCEPTED THE SPECIAL SITUATION OF THOSE WORKERS , NOW IN DISPUTE , OWING TO THE CLOSE AND LEGITIMATE LINK , PARTICULARLY FROM THE FINANCIAL VIEWPOINT , WHICH THE GERMAN LEGISLATURE HAS PLACED BETWEEN A RIGHT TO BUY-IN , WHICH WAS GENEROUSLY EXTENDED TO COVER A WIDE CATEGORY OF PERSONS , AND AN OBLIGATION INTENDED TO PREVENT INSURED PERSONS FROM BEING ABLE TO BUY-IN SYSTEMATICALLY THE LEAST EXPENSIVE PERIODS , IN THIS CASE THOSE FURTHER BACK IN TIME .
14 IT THUS FOLLOWS FROM THE OBJECTS AND THE WORDING OF PARAGRAPHS 8 AND 9 OF PART C OF ANNEX V THAT THOSE PROVISIONS , AND IN PARTICULAR THE FIRST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 9 , ARE INTENDED TO ENABLE THE REQUIREMENT OF RETROGRESSIVE BUYING-IN SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 49A ( 2 ) OF THE 1957 LAW TO CONTINUE TO EXIST IN THE LEGISLATION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY EVEN THOUGH THE MOST RECENT PERIODS CORRESPOND TO PERIODS IN WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS WERE COMPULSORY IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE . WHENEVER A GERMAN NATIONAL OR A NATIONAL OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY CLAIMS THE BENEFIT OF ARTICLE 49A ( 2 ) THE CONTRIBUTION PERIODS IN OTHER MEMBER STATES ARE NOT THEREFORE REGARDED AS ' ' COVERED ' ' BUT MUST BE BOUGHT-IN FIRST IF THEY ARE MORE RECENT THAN NATIONAL PERIODS WHICH ARE IN FACT NOT COVERED . ON THE OTHER HAND , THAT REQUIREMENT MAY NOT BE APPLIED AGAINST THE PERSONS REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 8 ( B ) AND ( C ) WHO , MOREOVER , ARE NOT IN ANY EVENT ALLOWED TO ' ' BUY-IN ' ' PERIODS COMPLETED IN OTHER MEMBER STATES .
BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION
15 IT IS NOW APPROPRIATE TO EXAMINE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT WHICH IS INDISPUTABLY APPLIED BY PARAGRAPHS 8 AND 9 OF PART C OF ANNEX V BETWEEN , ON THE ONE HAND , GERMAN WORKERS AND FOREIGNERS RESIDING IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 9 - AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , WORKERS FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES - REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 9 - DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE FORMER .
16 ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY , OF WHICH THE PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY IS MERELY A SPECIFIC ENUNCIATION , IS ONE