34As regards the personal scope of Regulation No 1408/71, it is indeed apparent from the the case-law of the Court of Justice that, where it is a German institution that is competent to grant family benefits in accordance with Title III, Chapter 7, of Regulation No 1408/71, the definition appearing in Article 1(a) of that regulation is ousted by that contained in Annex I, point I, D (‘Germany’), of that regulation (see Case C-194/96 Kulzer [1998] ECR I-895, paragraph 35), so that only persons who, unlike Mrs Schwemmer, are compulsorily insured under one of the schemes mentioned in Annex I, point I, D, of Regulation No 1408/71 may be regarded as ‘employed persons’ or‘self-employed persons’ within the meaning of Article 1(a)(ii) of that regulation (see to that effect, in particular, Joined Cases C-4/95 and C-5/95 Stöber and Piosa Pereira [1997] ECR I-511, paragraphs 29 to 36; Case C-266/95 Merino García [1997] ECR I-3279, paragraphs 24 to 26; Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala [1998] ECR I-2691, paragraphs 42 and 43; and Case C-262/96 Sürül [1999] ECR I-2685, paragraph 89).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.