Brussels, 10/07/2014 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 8 July, the European Court of Justice decided that (C83/13) a company established in the European Economic Area (EEA) which owns a vessel flying the flag of a third country may rely on the freedom to provide services where it provides maritime transport services from or to an EEA state, provided that it can, due to its operation of that vessel, be classed as the provider of those services and that the persons for whom the services are intended are established in EEA states other than that in which that company is established.
The Court had been called on for its interpretation by a Swedish works tribunal in a case involving Fonnship, a Norwegian company. It owned a vessel flying the Panamanian flag and with a Polish and Russian crew. The crew members' wages were governed by a collective agreement concluded between Fonnship and a Russian trade union. On two occasions, the vessel was blocked at port in Sweden by Swedish trade unions and despite protests from the crew, two successive agreements were signed with these trade unions. Fonnship then brought legal proceedings against the trade unions seeking an order that they repay it the economic loss caused by the interruption in the provision of services it usually provides on journeys between the states that are party to the EEA agreement.
The Swedish union asked the Court of Justice whether EU law must be interpreted as meaning that a company established in a state that is a party to the EEA agreement which is proprietor of a vessel flying the flag of a third country may rely on the freedom to provide services in cases where services are provided in a state that is party to the EEA or to such a state. The European judges decided that the decision is in the hands of the national courts to work out how to assess this specific case but said that application of Community law, including the free provision services, is not affected at all by the fact that the vessel flies the flag of a third country or the fact that the crew affected by union actions are nationals from third countries, from the moment the country is established in a state of the EEA it is considered as a provider or transport services, services from and to the country of the EEA, as well as that in which the company is established. In conclusion, the Court judged that any restriction that is an unjustifiable and which prohibits, hampers or makes less attractive the provision of the service should be declared incompatible with EU law. (JK)