CELEX: C1998/278/05
Language: en
Date: 1998-09-05 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 1998 in Case C-183/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 80/68/EEC)

5.9.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 278/3
Golfo di La Spezia Coop. arl, Ministero dei Trasporti e                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
della Navigazione Ð on the interpretation of Articles 3, 5,
30, 59, 85, 86 and Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty and of                                     (Sixth Chamber)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December                                           of 18 June 1998
1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services
to maritime transport between Member States and                      in    Case   C-183/97: Commission of the European
between Member States and third countries (OJ L 378,                            Communities v. Portuguese Republic (1)
31.12.1986, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M.                (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P.                        Failure to transpose Directive 80/68/EEC)
Puissochet and L. Sevón, Jugdes; N. Fennelly, Advocate-
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,                                        (98/C 278/05)
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 June 1998,
in which it has ruled:
                                                                                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
1. Article 30 of the EC Treaty does not preclude
    legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in
    this case, which requires shipping companies which
    are established in other Member States and whose                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    vessels make port stops in the first-mentioned Member                      published in the European Court Reports)
    State to have recourse to the services of local mooring
    groups holding exclusive concession, for a charge
    higher than the actual cost of the service provided.
                                                                     In Case C-183/97: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Francisco de Sousa Fialho and
2. The combined provisions of Articles 5, 85, 86 and
                                                                     Nicholas Khan) v. Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís
    Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty do not preclude
                                                                     Fernandes and JoaÄo Lopes Fernandes) Ð application for a
    legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in
                                                                     declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
    this case,
                                                                     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                     comply fully and properly with Council Directive 80/68/
    Ð which confers on undertakings established in that              EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of
        State an exclusive right to provide a mooring                groundwater against pollution caused by certain
        service,                                                     dangerous substances (OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43), in
                                                                     particular with Articles 8, 9, 10, 11 and 15 thereof, and,
    Ð which requires the service to be used at a price               in the alternative, by failing to inform the Commission of
        which, in addition to the actual cost of the service         such measures forthwith, the Portuguese Republic has
        provided, includes a supplement to cover                     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that
        maintenance of universal mooring service, and                Directive Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.
                                                                     Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F.
                                                                     Mancini, G. Hirsch and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur),
    Ð which provides for tariffs that vary from one port
                                                                     Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
        to another in order to take into account each
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 June 1998, in which
        port's particular characteristics.
                                                                     it:
3. The provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/
    86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of
    freedom to provide services to maritime transport                1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
    between Member States and between Member States                       period, all the laws, regulations and administrative
    and third countries and Article 59 of the EC Treaty do                provisions necessary to comply fully and properly with
    not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as                   Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979
    that at issue in this case, which requires shipping                   on the protection of groundwater against pollution
    companies established in another Member State, when                   caused by certain dangerous substances, in particular
    their vessels make port stops in the first Member State,              with Articles 8, 9, 10, 11 and 15 thereof, the
    to have recourse to the services which local mooring                  Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    groups holding exclusive concessions supply for a                     under Article 21(1) of the Directive;
    charge. Such legislation, even if it constituted an
    impediment to freedom to provide maritime transport
    services, would, in fact, be justified by considerations
                                                                     2. orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
    of public security within the meaning of Article 56 of
    the EC Treaty.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
( ) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
 1