PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE INSURANCE LAW TO THE ( LOWER ) MINIMUM BENEFIT PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE ALGEMENE ARBEIDSONGESCHIKTHEIDSWET ( GENERAL LAW ON INCAPACITY FOR WORK, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE GENERAL LAW "), NAMELY 70% OF THE STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGE . BY MEANS OF SUPPLEMENTS THAT MINIMUM COULD BE INCREASED TO 100% ONLY FOR BENEFICIARIES FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 10*(4 ) OF THE GENERAL LAW, THAT IS TO SAY, IN PRACTICE, THOSE HAVING FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES .
4 THE LAW OF 30 DECEMBER 1983 ( STAATSBLAD 698 ) INTRODUCED A NEW ARTICLE ( ARTICLE 97 ) INTO THE GENERAL LAW UNDER WHICH A RIGHT TO BENEFITS UNDER THAT LAW WAS GRANTED TO WOMEN ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER THE INSURANCE LAW IN RESPECT OF AN INCAPACITY FOR WORK WHICH HAD ALREADY ARISEN ON 1 OCTOBER 1976 ( THE DATE ON WHICH THE GENERAL LAW CAME INTO FORCE ); SUCH WOMEN HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THOSE BENEFITS SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING MARRIED . WITH EFFECT FROM 1 JANUARY 1984, THEY BECAME ENTITLED TO THOSE BENEFITS WHERE THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS AWARDED UNDER THE INSURANCE LAW WAS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT TO WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED UNDER THE GENERAL LAW IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN EXCLUDED FROM BENEFITS THEREUNDER .
5 MRS TEULING, WHO HAS BEEN UNABLE TO WORK SINCE 1972, RECEIVED FROM 1975 ONWARDS BENEFITS UNDER THE INSURANCE LAW EQUAL TO THE NET STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT SHE WAS MARRIED AND OF HER HUSBAND' S INCOME . HOWEVER, FROM 1 JANUARY 1984 THAT BENEFIT WAS REDUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF 29 DECEMBER 1982 TO 70% OF THE STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGE . MOREOVER, SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFIT SUPPLEMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 10*(4 ) OF THE GENERAL LAW BECAUSE OF THE INCOME ARISING FROM OR IN CONNECTION WITH HER HUSBAND' S WORK . HER HUSBAND DIED ON 28 APRIL 1984 AND THE PERIOD IN DISPUTE IS THEREFORE THAT BETWEEN JANUARY AND APRIL 1984 .
6 THE APPLICANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS CLAIMS THAT UNDER THE LAW OF 29 DECEMBER 1982 THE INVALIDITY BENEFIT WHICH SHE RECEIVES WAS REDUCED FROM 100 TO 70% OF THE STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGE . SINCE, AT THE MATERIAL TIME, SHE WAS MARRIED, AND HER HUSBAND' S INCOME WAS ABOVE THE MAXIMUM LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 10*(4 ), SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT SUPPLEMENTS OF 15 OR 30 %. SHE CLAIMS IN ESSENCE THAT THAT SYSTEM OF SUPPLEMENTS, WHICH TAKES ACCOUNT OF INCOME ARISING FROM OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OF A SPOUSE AND OF THE PRESENCE OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN, CONSTITUTES INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN AND IS THEREFORE INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 4*(1 ) OF DIRECTIVE 79/7 .
7 HOWEVER, THE COMPETENT NETHERLANDS INSTITUTION CONSIDERS THAT ONLY PERSONS WITH A DEPENDENT SPOUSE OR CHILDREN ARE ENTITLED TO THE GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME EQUAL TO THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE NET STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGE .
8 SINCE IT CONSIDERED THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE TO BE