BY ITSELF AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECTIVE AND CONTENT OF DIRECTIVE 79/7, ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) IS SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE TO BE RELIED UPON BY AN INDIVIDUAL AND APPLIED BY THE COURTS . MOREOVER, WHILST ARTICLE 5 LEAVES THE MEMBER STATES A DISCRETION WITH REGARD TO METHODS, IT PRESCRIBES THE RESULT WHICH THOSE METHODS MUST ACHIEVE, THAT IS TO SAY, THE ABOLITION OF ANY PROVISIONS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT .
9 FURTHERMORE, AS THE COURT EMPHASIZED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 24 JUNE 1987 IN CASE 384/85 BORRIE CLARKE V CHIEF ADJUDICATION OFFICER (( 1987 )) ECR 2865, THE DIRECTIVE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY DEROGATION FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) IN ORDER TO AUTHORIZE THE EXTENSION OF THE DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS OF EARLIER PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW . IT FOLLOWS THAT A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT MAINTAIN BEYOND 23 DECEMBER 1984 ANY INEQUALITIES OF TREATMENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FACT THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFIT ARE THOSE WHICH APPLIED BEFORE THAT DATE . THAT IS SO NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THOSE INEQUALITIES ARE THE RESULT OF TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS .
10 IT ALSO FOLLOWS FROM THE SAID JUDGMENTS OF 4 DECEMBER 1986 AND 24 MARCH 1987 THAT BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) OF THE DIRECTIVE WOMEN ARE ENTITLED AS FROM 23 DECEMBER 1984, TO BE TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO HAVE APPLIED TO THEM THE SCHEME WHICH APPLIES TO MEN IN THE SAME SITUATION, SINCE, WHERE THE DIRECTIVE HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED CORRECTLY, THAT SCHEME REMAINS THE ONLY VALID POINT OF REFERENCE . IN THIS CASE THAT MEANS THAT IF A MAN WHO LOST HIS EMPLOYMENT AND HIS RIGHT TO BENEFIT UNDER THE WW BEFORE 23 DECEMBER 1984 AND WHO DID NOT OBTAIN BENEFIT UNDER THE WWV BEFORE THAT DATE WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT UNDER THE WWV AFTER 23 DECEMBER 1984, A WOMAN IN THE SAME POSITION WOULD ALSO BE ENTITLED TO SUCH BENEFIT WITHOUT HAVING TO SATISFY ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITION APPLICABLE BEFORE THAT DATE EXCLUSIVELY TO MARRIED WOMEN .
11 THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 79/7 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IT DOES NOT CONFER ON THE MEMBER STATES A DISCRETION TO INCLUDE IN THE NATIONAL LAW IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVE A TRANSITIONAL PROVISION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A MARRIED WOMAN WHO BECAME UNEMPLOYED BEFORE 23 DECEMBER 1984 REMAINS SUBJECT EVEN AFTER THAT DATE TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT SHE BE A "WAGE-EARNER ".
SECOND QUESTION
12 THE SECOND QUESTION PUT BY THE RAAD VAN BEROEP ESSENTIALLY SEEKS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE DIRECTIVE FOR A TRANSITIONAL PROVISION TO BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT AS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 8 OF THE DIRECTIVE EXPIRED .
13 AS THE COMMISSION HAS RIGHTLY STRESSED, IF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING MEASURES ARE ADOPTED BELATEDLY, NAMELY AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, THE SIMULTANEOUS ENTRY INTO FORCE OF DIRECTIVE 79/7