IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE PROVISIONS AT ISSUE, INCLUDING THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE SEVERE DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCE, ARE CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 4*(1 ) OF THE DIRECTIVE .
6 TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE EFFECT OF ARTICLE 4*(1 ) OF THE DIRECTIVE WAS UNCLEAR IN THAT REGARD, THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, HEARING THE APPEAL, STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS AND REFERRED TO THE COURT THE FOLLOWING QUESTION :
"DOES ARTICLE 4*(1 ) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 79/7/EEC HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT SUCH THAT A WOMAN CAN FROM 22 DECEMBER 1984 QUALIFY FOR AN INVALIDITY BENEFIT BY REASON OF HER HAVING BEFORE THAT DATE SATISFIED CONDITIONS SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE A MAN TO QUALIFY FOR THAT BENEFIT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SHE DID NOT ALSO BEFORE THAT DATE SATISFY A FURTHER CONDITION APPLICABLE UNDER DOMESTIC LAW ONLY TO A CLASS OF WOMEN OF WHOM SHE WAS ONE?"
7 REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT FOR THE HEARING FOR A MORE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION AT ISSUE AND 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 .
8 THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER' S QUESTION SEEKS ESSENTIALLY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ARTICLE 4*(1 ) OF THE DIRECTIVE MAY BE RELIED UPON BY INDIVIDUALS IN A MEMBER STATE IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE EXTENSION BEYOND 22 DECEMBER 1984, THE DATE OF THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE, OF THE EFFECTS OF AN EARLIER NATIONAL PROVISION INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE 4*(1 ) AND, IF SO, WHETHER THE WOMEN CONCERNED ACQUIRED ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS AS FROM THAT DATE ON THE SAME CONDITIONS AS MEN .
9 IT SHOULD BE NOTED, AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENTS OF 4 DECEMBER 1986 IN CASE 71/85 FNV (( 1986 )) ECR AND OF 24 MARCH 1987 IN CASE 286/85 MC DERMOTT AND COTTER (( 1987 )) ECR , THAT STANDING BY ITSELF, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECTIVE AND CONTENTS OF THE DIRECTIVE, ARTICLE 4*(1 ) IS SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE TO BE RELIED UPON IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND APPLIED BY A COURT . MOREOVER, WHILST ARTICLE 5 OF THE DIRECTIVE LEAVES TO THE MEMBER STATES A DISCRETION WITH REGARD TO METHODS, IT PRESCRIBES THE RESULT WHICH THOSE METHODS MUST ACHIEVE, NAMELY THE ABOLITION OF ANY PROVISIONS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT .
10 FURTHERMORE, IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT 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 22 DECEMBER 1984 ANY INEQUALITIES OF TREATMENT WHICH HAVE THEIR ORIGIN IN 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 ADOPTED AT