Case C-456/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  6 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia) — Agip Petroli SpA v Capitaneria di porto di Siracusa, Capitaneria di porto di Siracusa — Sezione staccato di Santa Panagia, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Maritime cabotage — Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 — Law applicable to the manning of vessels over 650 gt carrying out island cabotage — Meaning of  voyage which follows or precedes  a voyage to or from another State)
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, liberalisation of trade, maritime cabotage

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/15

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 April 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia) — Agip Petroli
SpA v Capitaneria di porto di Siracusa, Capitaneria di
porto di Siracusa — Sezione staccato di Santa Panagia,
Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

(Case C-456/04) (1)

notwithstanding that technically the conditions laid down by Article
3(3) of the regulation apply, the result of the international voyage in
ballast is that the shipowner benefits, in respect of all matters relating
to manning from the application of the law of the flag State, frus-
trating the aim of Article 3(2) of the regulation, which is to allow the
application of the law of the host State to all matters relating to
manning in the case of island cabotage. Second, there must also be
objective evidence to show that the essential aim of the international
voyage in ballast is to avoid the application of Article 3(2) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 3577/92, in favour of Article 3(3).

(Maritime cabotage — Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 — Law
applicable to the manning of vessels over 650 gt carrying out
island cabotage — Meaning of ‘voyage which follows or
precedes’ a voyage to or from another State)

(1) OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.

(2006/C 143/26)

Language of the case:Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agip Petroli SpA

Defendants: Capitaneria di porto di Siracusa, Capitaneria di
porto di Siracusa — Sezione staccato di Santa Panagia, Minis-
tero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo
Regionale per la Secilia — Interpretation of Article 3(3) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992
applying the principle of freedom to provide services to mari-
time transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ
1992 L 364, p. 7) — Law applicable to the manning of vessels
over 650 gt carrying out island cabotage –Meaning of voyage
which follows or precedes a voyage to or from another
Member State

Operative part of the judgment

A ‘voyage which follows or precedes’ the cabotage voyage, as referred
to in Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7
December applying the principle of
freedom to provide services to
maritime transport within Member States (maritme cabotoge), means
in principle any voyage to or from another State, whether or not the
vessel has cargo on board. However, sham voyages without cargo on
board carried out to circumvent Regulation (EC) No 3577/92 cannot
first,
be permitted. Such an abuse can be found to exist only if,

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te 's-Hertogenbosch) — L.H. Piatkowski v Inspecteur van
de Belastingdienst — grote ondernemingen Eindhoven

(Case C-493/04) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers — Social security —
Person simultaneously employed in one Member State and
self-employed in another Member State — Person subject to
the social security legislation of each of those States — Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14c(b) and Annex VII —
Social security contributions levied on interest paid by a
company established in one Member State to a person resi-
dent in another Member State)

(2006/C 143/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L.H. Piatkowski

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — grote onderne-
mingen Eindhoven