CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASES?
2 . IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 1 IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, DOES THIS MEAN THAT NATIONAL PROVISIONS SUCH AS THOSE CONTAINED IN CHAPTERS 4 AND 6 OF PART 2 OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE ( CONSOLIDATION ) ACT 1981, AS AMENDED, ARE INACTABLE AND THAT THE PROSECUTRICES, AS MARRIED WOMEN LIVING IN A MEMBER STATE WHICH HAD FAILED TO REPEAL OR ADAPT SUCH PROVISIONS, ARE ENTITLED TO EQUAL TREATMENT IN RELATION TO THE RELEVANT SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFITS AS AND FROM THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 1984 AND HAVE RIGHTS OF ACTION IN THAT REGARD WHICH ARE ENFORCEABLE BY THEM AGAINST SUCH MEMBER STATES?"
7 IT APPEARS FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT SECTION 34 ( 6 ) OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE ( CONSOLIDATION ) ACT 1981 WAS REPEALED BY SECTION 6 ( C ) OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE ( NO 2 ) ACT 1985, WHICH PROVIDES THAT MARRIED WOMEN ARE TO BE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND PAY-RELATED BENEFITS FOR THE SAME PERIOD AS OTHER CLAIMANTS . SECTION 6 OF THE 1985 ACT CAME INTO FORCE ON 15 MAY 1986, AND GAVE LIMITED RETROACTIVE EFFECT TO THE REPEAL INASMUCH AS ONLY MARRIED WOMEN WHO HAD RECEIVED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 78 DAYS ENDING ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE SECTION CAME INTO FORCE WERE ENTITLED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT . CONSEQUENTLY, THE TWO PROSECUTRICES IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS, WHO CEASED TO RECEIVE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IN JANUARY 1985, WERE UNABLE TO BENEFIT .
8 IT ALSO APPEARS THAT SECTION 2 OF THE 1985 ACT AMENDED IN PARTICULAR CHAPTERS 4 AND 6 OF THE 1981 ACT BY PROVIDING THAT THE RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT WAS TO BE THE SAME FOR MEN AND FOR WOMEN . THAT SECTION ALSO CAME INTO FORCE ON 15 MAY 1986 IN SO FAR AS IT CONCERNS UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS .
9 REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT FOR THE HEARING FOR THE OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, WHICH ARE MENTIONED OR DISCUSSED HEREINAFTER ONLY IN SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY FOR THE REASONING OF THE COURT .
THE FIRST QUESTION
10 IN ITS FIRST QUESTION THE HIGH COURT SEEKS IN ESSENCE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) OF THE DIRECTIVE CONFERS RIGHTS ON INDIVIDUALS IN A MEMBER STATE UPON THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE MEMBER STATES WERE TO IMPLEMENT IT .
11 AS THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD, IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 19 JANUARY 1982 ( CASE 8/81 BECKER V FINANZAMT MUENSTER-INNENSTADT (( 1982 )) ECR 53 ), WHEREVER THE PROVISIONS OF A DIRECTIVE APPEAR, AS FAR AS THEIR SUBJECT-MATTER IS CONCERNED, TO BE UNCONDITIONAL AND SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE, INDIVIDUALS MAY RELY ON THOSE PROVISIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF IMPLEMENTING MEASURES ADOPTED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD AS AGAINST ANY NATIONAL PROVISION WHICH IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DIRECTIVE OR IN SO FAR AS THE PROVISIONS DEFINE RIGHTS WHICH INDIVIDUALS ARE ABLE TO ASSERT AGAINST THE STATE .
12 THAT CONCLUSION IS BASED ON THE