.
10 THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ACTION IS UNFOUNDED BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVE IS PATENTLY INADEQUATE . IT ALSO ARGUES THAT COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 77/780 RAISES PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION WITH REGARD TO THE VERY NATURE OF THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH IT IMPOSES UPON MEMBER STATES AND THE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE NATURE OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS .
11 IN THAT RESPECT ATTENTION SHOULD BE DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES PARTICIPATE IN THE PREPARATORY WORK FOR DIRECTIVES AND MUST THEREFORE BE IN A POSITION TO PREPARE WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED THE LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS NECESSARY FOR THEIR IMPLEMENTATION . IF , NEVERTHELESS , THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A DIRECTIVE PROVES TO BE TOO SHORT , THE ONLY MEANS OF ACTION COMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW AVAILABLE TO THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED CONSISTS IN TAKING THE APPROPRIATE INITIATIVES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD BY THE COMPETENT COMMUNITY INSTITUTION .
12 AS FOR THE DIFFICULTIES IN INTERPRETING THE DIRECTIVE , THEY CANNOT HAVE BEEN SUCH AS TO SANCTION THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT IN EXCEEDING THE PERIODS IT HAD ACCEPTED , ESPECIALLY AS IT HAD OTHER MEANS TO ENABLE IT TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS .
13 MOREOVER , EVEN IF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE WERE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE , THAT DOES NOT EXEMPT THE BELGIAN STATE FROM ITS OBLIGATION OF IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVE BY ADOPTING NATIONAL PROVISIONS . AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY OBSERVED IN THE JUDGMENT OF 6 MAY 1980 IN CASE 102/79 ( COMMISSION V BELGIUM ( 1980 ) ECR 1487 ), THE RIGHT OF PERSONS AFFECTED TO RELY IN LAW ON A DIRECTIVE AS AGAINST THE DEFAULTING MEMBER STATE CONSTITUTES A MINIMUM GUARANTEE ARISING FROM THE BINDING NATURE OF THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED ON MEMBER STATES BY THE EFFECT OF DIRECTIVES UNDER THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 189 AND CANNOT JUSTIFY A MEMBER STATE ' S ABSOLVING ITSELF FROM TAKING IN DUE TIME IMPLEMENTING MEASURES SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE PURPOSE OF EACH DIRECTIVE .
14 FINALLY , IN ITS STATEMENT OF DEFENCE THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT OBSERVES THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DIRECTIVE ARE ALREADY SATISFIED IN NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS PROPERLY SO CALLED OR IN ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF A GENERAL NATURE WHICH HAVE RECEIVED SUFFICIENT PUBLICITY . IN ITS REJOINDER THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT STATES THAT THOSE PROVISIONS CANNOT BE REGARDED SIMPLY AS ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES BUT ARE IN FACT ADMINISTRATIVE RULES . IT WAS ONLY AFTER A REQUEST ADDRESSED TO IT BY THE COURT THAT THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT LODGED , ON 11 OCTOBER 1982 , AT THE COURT REGISTRY A DOCUMENT TO WHICH WERE ANNEXED THE VARIOUS NATIONAL PROVISIONS WHICH , IN ITS VIEW , ENSURE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE IN BELGIAN LAW .
15 HOWEVER , THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT INVOKED THAT ARGUMENT ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF THE ACTION BEFORE THE COURT AND CONFINED ITSELF DURING THE PROCEDURE PRIOR TO ACTION TO STATING THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVE IN