20.

The United Kingdom has serious doubts as to the admissibility of the questions. It submits, first, that they are not necessary for determination of the proceedings pending before the national court and, secondly, that the particulars given in the order for reference are not sufficient to enable the Member States and the Community institutions to submit appropriate observations. First, the questions on which the Court is requested to give a ruling relate to the interpretation of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security. However, in the order for reference itself the national court states that there is no direct discrimination in this particular case and that the contested national provision — assuming that it affects far more women than men — is justified by objective factors unrelated to discrimination. According to the Court's case-law, ( 6 ) it is for the national court, which has sole jurisdiction to assess the facts and interpret the national legislation, to determine whether and to what extent a legislative provision, which, though applying regardless of the sex of the worker, actually affects a greater number of women than men, is justified by reasons which are objective and unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. As, in the present case, the national court itself states that a provision which may have a discriminatory effect is objectively justified, there is no reason for requesting an interpretation of Directive 79/7. Secondly, the United Kingdom states that the deficiencies in the order for reference make it particularly difficult to formulate any observations in the present case. Nevertheless, should the Court find the questions admissible, the United Kingdom suggests that, in default of more information concerning the facts, the questions should be examined on the basis of alternative hypothetical assumptions. If Mrs Züchner had been working or seeking work when her husband had the accident, and if she had given up work or seeking work in order to look after him, she would, as a person who gave up work because of one of the risks listed in Article 3, belong to the working population within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 79/7. However, if she had not been working or seeking work before the accident, she would not belong to the working population and would not therefore be entitled to rely on Directive 79/7 because, according to the Court's case-law, the Directive applies only to persons who are available for employment or who are no longer available because of the materialization of one of the risks referred to in Article 3. ( 7 ) Finally, the United Kingdom takes the view that, if the Court finds the questions admissible, it should answer only the first, and the reply should be as follows: the plaintiff belongs to the working population within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive only if, before her husband's accident, she was a worker, or self-employed or was seeking work and her activity was interrupted solely because one of the risks mentioned in Article 3 of the Directive materialized in relation to her husband.