Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:30
Date: 2026-01-22
Language of the case: Dutch
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary C-413/24 – 1 
Case C-413/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
13 June 2024 
Referring court: 
Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent, afdeling Oostende (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
6 June 2024 
Applicant: 
Vlaams Gewest 
Defendants: 
P&O North Sea Ferries Limited 
P&O Ferries Limited 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
This request was made in the context of a dispute in which the Vlaams Gewest 
(Flemish Region, Belgium) is seeking payment from P&O North Sea Ferries 
Limited (‘P&O’), a company incorporated under English law, of invoices for 
vessel traffic services (‘VTS’), which it claims infringes the principle of freedom 
to provide services. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
In this request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, the referring 
court questions both the VTS regime, under which traffic between Flemish ports 
is exempted from the tariff payable for such services, and the associated tariff 
regime, under which the tariff is based solely on the length of the vessel. The 
referring court questions whether these regimes infringe the freedom to provide 
services. The referring court also wishes to know whether a service provider 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-413/24 
 
2  
established in the United Kingdom may rely on EU law even after the withdrawal 
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Does a vessel traffic services (VTS) regime, with the associated fixed tariff 
based on the length of the vessel, that applies to maritime traffic to a Flemish port 
from a port in another Member State, but which does not apply to traffic between 
Flemish ports because such traffic is exempt from the tariff, constitute an obstacle 
to the freedom to provide services pursuant to 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, in conjunction with Article 56 TFEU? 
2. Does the application of a uniform VTS tariff based solely on the length of 
the vessel for access to ports that are substantially different have the effect of 
rendering the VTS tariff contrary to the freedom to provide services in Article 56 
TFEU and […] 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, because other important 
factors specific to the route of navigation to the port, such as the distance travelled 
by the vessel in the VTS area, the distance between the open sea and the port, and 
the complexity and particular characteristics of the port are not taken into 
account? 
3. Should Article 191 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement of 
30 December 2020 between the European Union and the European Atomic 
Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland, of the other part, be interpreted as meaning that, even after the 
withdrawal, service providers established in the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Northern Ireland can invoke EU law, and questions 1 and 2 should be 
answered in the same way both before and after the withdrawal of the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
TFEU, Article 56 
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 
Trade and Cooperation Agreement of 30 December 2020 between the European 
Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, 
Article 191 
VLAAMS GEWEST 
 
3 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Decreet van 16 juni 2006 betreffende de begeleiding van de scheepvaart op de 
maritieme toegangswegen en de organisatie van het Maritiem Reddings- en 
Coördinatiecentrum (Decree of 16 June 2006 on the guidance of shipping on 
maritime access routes and the organisation of the Maritime Rescue and 
Coordination Centre) (Belgian Official Gazette, 26 October 2006), Article 17, 
Article 37 and Article 37bis 
Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering van 26 oktober 2007 betreffende de begeleiding 
van de scheepvaart (Decision of the Government of Flanders of 26 October 2007 
on guidance of shipping) (Belgian Official Gazette, 8 November 2007), as 
amended by Decision of 23 April 2021 (Belgian Official Gazette, 21 May 2021). 
Decreet van de Vlaamse Regering van 31 maart 2023, over diverse bepalingen 
over het gemeenschappelijk vervoer, de weginfrastructuur en het wegenbeleid, en 
de waterinfrastructuur en het waterbeleid (Decree of the Government of Flanders 
of 31 March 2023 on various provisions on public transport, road infrastructure 
and road policy, and water infrastructure and water policy) (Belgian Official 
Gazette, 21 April 2023) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 P&O operates as a service provider of passenger and freight transport between 
ports in continental Europe, including Zeebrugge, and the United Kingdom. 
2 The Flemish authorities have introduced legislation with which ship operators 
must comply when sailing to Flemish seaports. According to the Decree of 
16 June 2006 on the guidance of shipping on maritime access routes and the 
organisation of the Maritime Rescue and Coordination Centre (‘the Shipping 
Guidance Decree’), ship masters entering the VTS operating area or a part of it 
determined by the Government of Flanders are obliged to participate in the VTS 
system. A small stretch of water outside the port of Zeebrugge belongs to the VTS 
operating area. 
3 A vessel traffic service fee (‘VTS fee’) is payable for the use of the VTS system, 
and this applies to every vessel coming from the sea and destined for a Flemish 
port that is included in the VTS system. The VTS fee is not payable in respect of 
shipping traffic between Flemish ports or for ships of up to 41 metres in length. 
The amount of the VTS fee due is determined solely on the basis of the length of 
the vessel. In its judgment of 29 April 2010, the Grondwettelijk Hof 
(Constitutional Court, Belgium) ruled that the VTS fee should be considered 
remuneration. 
4 The Flemish Region’s claim essentially seeks to have P&O ordered to pay unpaid 
invoices for VTS. P&O does not wish to avail of VTS when sailing to or from 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-413/24 
 
4  
Zeebrugge, and challenges the merits of the Flemish Region’s claim on the basis 
of infringement of various provisions of EU law. 
5 The dispute covers both the pre-Brexit and post-Brexit periods. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 P&O argues that the obligation to use VTS is an obstacle to the provision of 
transport services to and from Zeebrugge that is contrary to EU law. 
7 According to P&O, the VTS fees are contrary to the right to free movement of 
services as enshrined in Article 56 TFEU and 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. 
8 The fact that shipping traffic between Flemish ports is exempt from VTS fees 
constitutes prohibited discrimination, as far as P&O is concerned. It refers in this 
connection to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 October 1994, C-381/93, 
Commission v France. In that case, the Court of Justice ruled that ‘the provision 
of maritime transport services between Member States cannot be subject to stricter 
conditions than those to which analogous provisions of services at domestic level 
are subject’, and that ‘where national legislation, though applicable without 
discrimination to all vessels whether used by national providers of services or by 
those from other Member States, operates a distinction according to whether those 
vessels are engaged in internal transport or in intra-Community transport, thus 
securing a special advantage for the domestic market and the internal transport 
services of the Member State in question, that legislation must be deemed to 
constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide maritime transport services 
contrary to Regulation No 4055/86.’ 
P&O submits that there is no objective justification for granting the exemption to 
ships sailing between Flemish ports, in particular to seagoing ships that are more 
than 41 metres in length (and therefore similar to P&O’s ships) and that sail the 
route of 70 nautical miles between Zeebrugge and Antwerp, without having first 
entered the VTS-Scheldt zone by sea. Those ships use VTS over a long route, 
while P&O’s ships calling at Zeebrugge only travel between 5 and 10 nautical 
miles in the maritime waters where VTS are provided. Moreover, vessels sailing 
to Antwerp will receive much more active VTS, given that Antwerp is a very busy 
port, the waterways become increasingly narrow (and crowded) on the approach 
to Antwerp, and vessels with deep draughts cannot navigate certain parts of the 
route at low tide. 
According to P&O, the exemption of traffic between Flemish ports also has the 
consequence that VTS are provided for this shipping traffic without charge, in 
which case it can be assumed that the costs of the VTS are borne by other users, 
such as P&O, requiring them to pay fees that are no longer proportionate. 
VLAAMS GEWEST 
 
5 
9 P&O states that a ship sailing from Hull to Zeebrugge has to pay the same fee as 
an equally long ship from Hull calling at Antwerp, so the charges have no 
connection with the actual use of the VTS. Open sea ports such as Zeebrugge pose 
no navigational problems, while estuary ports such as Antwerp are much more 
difficult to reach. According to P&O, ships calling at the latter port require active 
assistance from the Agentschap Maritieme Dienstverlening en Kust (Maritime and 
Coastal Services Agency, Belgium). 
10 P&O argues that, for the purposes of the assessment of this case, the EU principles 
of free movement apply to both the pre-Brexit and post-Brexit periods. The Trade 
and Cooperation Agreement of 30 December 2020 between the European Union 
and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (‘the Trade and 
Cooperation Agreement’) provides that shipping from the United Kingdom bound 
for the EU should not be subject to less favourable treatment than shipping 
between Member States. 
11 The Flemish Region refers to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 June 
2002, Sea-Land Service, C-430/99 and C-431/99, according to which ‘freedom to 
provide services, as a fundamental principle of the Treaty, may be restricted only 
by rules which are justified by overriding reasons in the general interest and are 
applicable to all persons or undertakings pursuing an activity in the territory of the 
host Member State. Furthermore, in order to be so justified, the national 
legislation in question must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective 
which it pursues and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it’. 
12 According to the Flemish Region, the provision according to which the VTS fee is 
not payable for shipping traffic between Flemish ports aims to avoid the 
remuneration having to be paid more than once when ships first sail from the sea 
to a Flemish port to load or unload and then sail from this first port to another 
Flemish port. 
13 The Flemish Region argues that a service provider based in the United Kingdom 
can no longer rely on EU law after Brexit in the same way as before Brexit. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
14 Any discriminatory treatment affecting maritime transport services that arises 
from the provisions of the Shipping Guidance Decree falls within the scope of 
Regulation No 4055/86. 
Exemption of shipping traffic between Flemish ports 
15 The referring court states that the Shipping Guidance Decree clearly imposes less 
favourable conditions on ships departing from a port in another EU Member State 
and sailing to a Flemish port than on ships departing from a Flemish port and 
sailing to another Flemish port. The Flemish Region’s argument that this is to 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-413/24 
 
6  
avoid the remuneration having to be paid more than once does not convince the 
referring court because, according to Article 37bis(2) of that decree, the VTS fee 
is payable only once per calendar day. It follows that if a ship first calls at the port 
of Zeebrugge and departs for Antwerp that same day, no VTS fee is due. If that 
ship does not leave on the same day, no VTS fee is due either, as the traffic is 
between Flemish ports. 
Uniform tariff based solely on the length of the vessel for access to ports that are 
substantially different 
16 The referring court notes that the same tariff, which is based solely on the length 
of the vessel, is applied to the various Flemish ports. A seagoing ship entering the 
port of Antwerp and a seagoing ship of the same length entering the port of 
Zeebrugge pay the same VTS fee. Applying a uniform tariff for the two ports that 
are substantially different raises the question of whether VTS fees based solely on 
the length of a ship can be objectively justified, and whether other factors such as 
the distance the ship travels in the VTS area, the distance between the open sea 
and the port or the complexity and particular characteristics of the port should not 
be taken into account. 
Brexit 
17 Under Article 267 TFEU, the Court of Justice of the European Union has 
jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the ‘interpretation of acts of the 
institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union’. The referring court submits 
a question for a preliminary ruling on whether Article 191 of the Trade and 
Cooperation Agreement is to be interpreted as meaning that, even after the 
withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, service 
providers from that country can invoke provisions of Article 56 TFEU in the same 
way as before the withdrawal.