Smatram da je unatoč činjenici da članak 94. Uredbe br. 1408/71, naslovljen „Prijelazne odredbe za zaposlene osobe“, ne upućuje izričito u svojem stavku 2. na sva razdoblja „samozaposlenja“, Sud u točki 25. svoje presude od 7. veljače 2002., Kauer (C‐28/00, str. I‐1343.), odlučio da, „[š]to se tiče članka 94. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 1408/71, valja podsjetiti da je tamo postojeći izraz ,razdoblje osiguranjaʾ definiran u članku 1. točki (r) te uredbe tako da označava ,razdoblja plaćenih doprinosa ili razdoblja zaposlenja ili samozaposlenja koja su utvrđena ili uzeta u obzir kao razdoblja osiguranja prema zakonodavstvu na temelju kojeg su navršena [...]’“.
I take the view that, notwithstanding the fact that Article 94 of Regulation No 1408/71, entitled ‘Transitional provisions for employed persons’, does not expressly mention, in paragraph 2 thereof, periods of ‘self-employment’, the Court held, in paragraph 25 of its judgment in Case C‐28/00 Kauer [2002] ECR I‐1343, that ‘[a]s regards Article 94(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, it must be borne in mind that the expression period of insurance used in that provision is defined in Article 1(r) of Regulation No 1408/71 as meaning periods of contribution or periods of employment or self-employment as defined or recognised as periods of insurance by the legislation under which they were completed ...’.EurLex-2 EurLex-2