2.

I shall therefore consider this submission only as an ancillary: it does not appear to me to be well founded. Article 6 of the directive requires Member States to introduce “into their national legal systems such measures as are necessary to enable all persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply to them the principle of equal treatment within the meaning of Articles 3, 4 and 5 to pursue their claims by judicial process after possible recourse to other competent authorities.” It does not specify the manner in which that obligation must be satisfied. The Commission complains that Article 15 of Law No 903 provides for a special procedure only in relation to breaches of Articles 1 and 5 thereof concerning, as the Court is aware, access to employment and the prohibition on women's working at night. The procedure is summary and “the Pretore of the place in which [the conduct complained of has] occurred ... shall if he finds the breach referred to in the application proved, make an order containing a statement of the reasons on which it is based and being immediately enforceable, requiring the person concerned to terminate such unlawful conduct and declaring the same null and void”. The Commission complains that the Italian Government did not extend that procedure to all the matters referred to in Articles 3 to 5 of the directive. However, it seems to me that the requirements of the directive do not go so far. As the Italian Government rightly observed, Article 6 leaves the Member States the choice of the means for its application. A special procedure is certainly not the only way of doing so; it is also necessary to take into account the general legal remedies available to workers who claim to be victims of sexual discrimination. We learnt at the hearing that Article 700 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, which is a rule of quite general scope, allows measures necessary to avoid irreversible damage to be obtained expeditiously before a judgment on the merits. That provision may therefore be invoked in all areas coming within the scope of the directive which are not covered by Article 15 of Law No 903. As regards non-urgent proceedings the Italian Government refers to all the normal legal remedies which, in view of the object of the directive, are available in the context of employment law ( 9 ) or administrative proceedings. ( 10 ) Finally, should there be a lacuna in the legal remedies available it refers to Article 24 of the Constitution according to which “anyone' may bring an action to protect his rights and legitimate interests”. The Italian Government states that that constitutional principle is of direct application and well established in the sense that once the existence of a substantive rule protecting a person's interest is established no special legislative measure is necessary to ensure the protection of such an interest since it is guaranteed in a general and absolute way by Article 24. Since the provisions of Law No 903 protect the individual interests of workers who suffer discrimination, such workers may rely on Article 24 to ensure observance of those provisions by means of legal action. Since that is the position in Italian law and the Commission has not challenged it, I consider that the second complaint made against the Italian Government, even assuming it to be admissible, quod non, is in any event unfounded.