Corsica Ferries France SA contra Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova Coop. arl, Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia Coop. arl y Ministero dei Trasporti e della Navigazione.
Jurisdiction | European Union |
Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
Writing for the Court | Wathelet |
ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:1998:306 |
Celex Number | 61996CJ0266 |
Date | 18 June 1998 |
Procedure Type | Reference for a preliminary ruling |
Docket Number | C-266/96 |
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 1998. - Corsica Ferries France SA v Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova Coop. arl, Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia Coop. arl and Ministero dei Trasporti e della Navigazione. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunale di Genova - Italy. - Freedom to provide services - Maritime transport - Undertakings holding exclusive rights - Mooring services for vessels in ports - Compliance with the competition rules - Tariffs. - Case C-266/96.
European Court reports 1998 Page I-03949
Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
1 Preliminary rulings - Reference to the Court - Procedure not involving an inter partes hearing - Possibility of making a reference - Need to provide the Court with sufficient information regarding the factual and legal context
(EC Treaty, Art. 177)
2 Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Question manifestly irrelevant
(EC Treaty, Art. 177)
3 Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - National rules requiring maritime transport undertakings established in another Member State to use the services of local mooring groups - Whether permissible - Conditions
(EC Treaty, Art. 30)
4 Competition - Community rules - Obligations of the Member States - National rules conferring on undertakings established in that State an exclusive right to provide a mooring service - Compatibility - Conditions
(EC Treaty, Arts 5, 85, 86 and 90)
5 Transport - Maritime transport - Freedom to provide services - National rules requiring maritime transport undertakings established in another Member State to use the services of local mooring groups - Whether permissible - Conditions
(EC Treaty, Arts 56 and 59; Council Regulation No 4055/86)
Summary
6 Article 177 of the Treaty does not make reference to the Court subject to there having been an inter partes hearing in the proceedings in the course of which the national court refers a question for a preliminary ruling. However, in the context of a procedure where there has been no inter partes hearing, it is equally necessary that the national court give the Court a detailed and complete account of the factual and legal context.
7 In the context of references for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty, it is for the national courts alone, before which the proceedings are pending and which must assume responsibility for the judgment to be given, to determine, having regard to the particular features of each case, both the need for a preliminary ruling to enable them to give judgment and the relevance of the questions which they refer to the Court. A request for a preliminary ruling from a national court may be rejected only if it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the actual nature of the case or the subject-matter of the main action.
8 Article 30 of the Treaty does not preclude legislation of a Member State requiring shipping companies which are established in other Member States and whose vessels make port stops in the first-mentioned Member State to have recourse to the services of local mooring groups holding exclusive concessions, at a charge higher than the actual cost of the service provided, where such legislation makes no distinction according to the origin of the goods transported, its purpose is not to regulate trade in goods with other Member States and the restrictive effects which it might have on the free movement of goods are too uncertain and indirect for the obligation which it imposes to be regarded as being capable of hindering trade between Member States.
9 The combined provisions of Articles 5, 85, 86 and 90(1) of the Treaty do not preclude legislation of a Member State
- which confers on undertakings established in that State an exclusive right to provide a mooring service,
- which requires the service to be used at a price which, in addition to the actual cost of the service provided, includes a supplement to cover maintenance of a universal mooring service, and
- which provides for tariffs that vary from one port to another in order to take into account each port's particular characteristics,
where the undertakings referred to have in fact been entrusted by the Member State with managing a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Treaty, and the other conditions for applying that provision are satisfied, and where there is no agreement, decision or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 85 of the Treaty.
10 The provisions of Regulation No 4055/86, applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries, and Article 59 of the Treaty do not preclude legislation of a Member State which requires shipping companies established in another Member State, when their vessels make port stops in the first Member State, to have recourse to the services which local mooring groups holding exclusive concessions supply for a charge where, first, such legislation contains no overt or covert discrimination contrary to those provisions and, second, even if it constituted an impediment to freedom to provide mooring services or freedom to provide maritime transport services, in the former case, the conditions for application of Article 90(2) would be satisfied and, in the latter case, the legislation would be justified by considerations of public security within the meaning of Article 56 of the Treaty.
PartiesIn Case C-266/96,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Corsica Ferries France SA
and
Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genova Coop. arl,
Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia Coop. arl,
Ministero dei Trasporti e della Navigazione,
on the interpretation of Articles 3, 5, 30, 59, 85, 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1),
THE COURT
(Fifth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges,
Advocate General: N. Fennelly,
Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
- Corsica Ferries France SA, by G. Conte and G. Giacomini, of the Genoa Bar,
- Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genova Coop. arl, by A. Tizzano, of the Naples Bar, and F. Munari, of the Genoa Bar,
- Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia Coop. arl, by S.M. Carbone and G. Sorda, of the Genoa Bar, and G.M. Roberti, of the Naples Bar,
- the Italian Government, by Professor U. Leanza, Head of the Legal Service, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by P.G. Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato,
- the Commission of the European Communities, by G. Marenco, Principal Legal Adviser, and L. Pignataro, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing the oral observations of Corsica Ferries France SA, represented by G. Conte and G. Giacomini, Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genova Coop. arl, represented by F. Munari, Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia Coop. arl, represented by S.M. Carbone, G. Sorda and G.M. Roberti, the Italian Government, represented by G. Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato, and the Commission, represented by L. Pignataro, at the hearing on 6 November 1997,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 22 January 1998,
gives the following
Judgment
Grounds1 By order of 5 July 1996, received at the Court on 2 August 1996, the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa), referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty a number of questions on the interpretation of Articles 3, 5, 30, 59, 85, 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1).
2 Those questions arose in proceedings between Corsica Ferries France SA (hereinafter `Corsica Ferries') and Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genova Coop. arl (the mooring group of the Port of Genoa, hereinafter `the Genoa mooring group') and the Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia Coop. arl (the mooring group of the Port of La Spezia, hereinafter `the La Spezia mooring group') and the Ministero dei Trasporti e della Navigazione (Ministry of Transport and Shipping).
3 Corsica Ferries is a company incorporated under French law which, since 1 January 1994, has provided, in its capacity as a shipping company, a regular liner service by car ferry between Corsica and various Italian ports, including Genoa and La Spezia. For this purpose it uses ferries flying the Panamanian flag on time charter from Tourship Ltd, which is established in Jersey. Corsica Ferries and Tourship Ltd are both controlled by Tourship SA, a company incorporated under Luxembourg law and established in Luxembourg. Over the period from 1994 to 1996 Corsica Ferries paid to the Genoa and La Spezia mooring groups various sums in respect of mooring services (mooring and unmooring of vessels) to which port stops made by vessels operated by it had given rise.
4 Corsica Ferries always attached express reservations to its payments, indicating that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 23 January 2020.
...Judgments of 14 December 1971, Politi (43/71, EU:C:1971:122, paragraphs 4 and 5), and of 18 June 1998, Corsica Ferries France (C‑266/96, EU:C:1998:306, paragraph 31 Judgments of 28 June 1978, Simmenthal (70/77, EU:C:1978:139, paragraphs 10 and 11); of 20 October 1993, Balocchi (C‑10/92, EU:......
-
UX contra Governo della Repubblica italiana.
...sentenze del 14 dicembre 1971, Politi, 43/71, EU:C:1971:122, punti 4 e 5, nonché dell’8 giugno 1998, Corsica Ferries France, C‑266/96, EU:C:1998:306, punto 65 Alla luce delle considerazioni che precedono, si devono respingere i dubbi espressi dalla Commissione e dal governo italiano e const......
-
Viacom Outdoor Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL.
...Carbonati Apuani [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 17. See also Case C-387/01 Weigel [2004] ECR I-0000, end of paragraph 55. 41 – See also Case C-266/96 Corsica Ferries France [1998] ECR I-3949, paragraph 56, Case C‑205/99 Analir and Others [2001] ECR I-1271, paragraph 21, and Joined Cases C-430......
-
Conclusiones del Abogado General Sr. M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona, presentadas el 10 de septiembre de 2020.
...dans les eaux portuaires, qui présente les caractéristiques d’un service public (arrêt du 18 juin 1998, Corsica Ferries France, C‑266/96, EU:C:1998:306, point 36 Le gouvernement belge ajoute que ces tâches sont fréquemment exécutées au moyen de machines spécifiques, qui requièrent des conna......
-
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 23 January 2020.
...Judgments of 14 December 1971, Politi (43/71, EU:C:1971:122, paragraphs 4 and 5), and of 18 June 1998, Corsica Ferries France (C‑266/96, EU:C:1998:306, paragraph 31 Judgments of 28 June 1978, Simmenthal (70/77, EU:C:1978:139, paragraphs 10 and 11); of 20 October 1993, Balocchi (C‑10/92, EU:......
-
UX contra Governo della Repubblica italiana.
...sentenze del 14 dicembre 1971, Politi, 43/71, EU:C:1971:122, punti 4 e 5, nonché dell’8 giugno 1998, Corsica Ferries France, C‑266/96, EU:C:1998:306, punto 65 Alla luce delle considerazioni che precedono, si devono respingere i dubbi espressi dalla Commissione e dal governo italiano e const......
-
European Commission v Hungary.
...1991, Merci convenzionali porto di Genova, C‑179/90, EU:C:1991:464, paragraph 27; of 18 June 1998, Corsica Ferries France, C‑266/96, EU:C:1998:306, paragraph 45; of 23 May 2000, Sydhavnens Sten & Grus, C‑209/98, EU:C:2000:279, paragraph 75; and of 3 March 2011, AG2R Prévoyance, C‑437/09, EU......
-
Viacom Outdoor Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL.
...Carbonati Apuani [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 17. See also Case C-387/01 Weigel [2004] ECR I-0000, end of paragraph 55. 41 – See also Case C-266/96 Corsica Ferries France [1998] ECR I-3949, paragraph 56, Case C‑205/99 Analir and Others [2001] ECR I-1271, paragraph 21, and Joined Cases C-430......
-
Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2327 of 5 July 2016 on State aid SA.19864 — 2014/C (ex 2009/NN54) implemented by Belgium — Public financing of Brussels public IRIS hospitals (notified under document C(2016) 4051) (Text with EEA relevance )
...punto 27; causa C-242/95, GT-Link A/S, ECLI:EU:C:1997:376, punto 53; e causa C-266/96, Corsica Ferries France SA, ECLI:EU:C:1997:376, ECLI:EU:C:1998:306, punto (177) Causa T-289/03,BUPA e altri/Commissione, ECLI:EU:T:2008:29, punti da 166 a 169 e 172; causa T-17/02, Fred Olsen, ECLI:EU:T:20......
-
Commission Decision (EU) 2016/633 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.33961 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of Nîmes-Uzès-Le Vigan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Veolia Transport Aéroport de Nîmes, Ryanair Limited and Airport Marketing Services Limited (notified under document C(2014) 5078) (Only the French text is authentic)Text with EEA relevance
...paragraph 27; judgment in GT-Link A/S, C-242/95, EU:C:1997:376, paragraph 53 and judgment in Corsica Ferries France SA, C-266/96, EU:C:1998:306, paragraph (188) See in particular judgment in BRT v SABAM, C-127/73, EU:C:1974:25. (189) See communication from the Commission on the application ......
-
2000/521/EC: Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 86(3) of the EC Treaty (notified under document number C(2000) 2267) (Text with EEA relevance) (Only the Spanish text is authentic)
...Elser v. Macrotron [1991] ECR I-1979, paragraph 28 and Case C-260/89 ERT v DRP [1991] ECR I-2925, paragraph 31. (18) Case C-179/90 and Case C-266/96 Corsica Ferries [1998] ECR (19) Paragraph 34 and footnote 61. (20) Now Article 82(2)(c). (21) Cited above, point 45. (22) Now Article 86(1) an......