Odbor kompatibility s právem ES Úřad vlády ČR	I S A P Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
	Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury

ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů


	Číslo (Kód CELEX): Number (CELEX Code):		61992J0379

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 14 JULY 1994. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MATTEO PERALTA. REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING: PRETURA CIRCONDARIALE DI RAVENNA - ITALY. ARTICLES 3(F), 7, 30, 48, 52, 59, 62, 84 AND 130R OF THE EEC TREATY. CASE C-379/92.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1994 PAGES I-3453

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords		FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS;QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS;MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT;FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS;FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT AND SERVICES;RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT;FREE MOVEMENT OF SERVICES;TRANSPORT;ENVIRONMENT;

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:		157E003;157E007;157E030;157E048;157E052;157E059;157E062;157E084;157E130R;386R4055

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:

Názor soudu a komentář:

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. THE COURT MAY NOT RULE ON THE QUESTION WHETHER LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE IS COMPATIBLE WITH AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT, SUCH AS THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, CALLED "THE MARPOL CONVENTION", IF THE COMMUNITY IS NOT PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS ASSUMED, UNDER THE TREATY, THE POWERS PREVIOUSLY EXERCISED BY THE MEMBER STATES IN THE FIELD TO WHICH THE AGREEMENT APPLIES OR THAT ITS PROVISIONS HAVE THE EFFECT OF BINDING THE COMMUNITY.

2. SINCE ARTICLE 59 OF THE TREATY MUST APPLY IN ALL CASES IN WHICH A PROVIDER OF SERVICES OFFERS SERVICES ON THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH HE IS ESTABLISHED AND ARTICLE 1(1) OF REGULATION NO 4055/86 LAYS DOWN THAT FREEDOM TO PROVIDE MARITIME TRANSPORT SERVICES BETWEEN MEMBER STATES AND BETWEEN MEMBER STATES AND THIRD COUNTRIES IS TO APPLY IN RESPECT OF NATIONALS OF MEMBER STATES WHO ARE ESTABLISHED IN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THAT OF THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SERVICES ARE INTENDED, A MARITIME CARRIER WHO CARRIES GOODS TO OTHER MEMBER STATES MAY RELY, AS AGAINST THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE IS ESTABLISHED AND WHOSE FLAG HIS VESSELS FLY, ON AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE FREEDOM TO PROVIDE MARITIME TRANSPORT SERVICES RECOGNIZED BY COMMUNITY LAW. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS THE COMPLAINTS HE MAY ASSERT AGAINST IT, HIS SITUATION IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A CARRIER ESTABLISHED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE WHO, WHEN PROVIDING SERVICES, MUST THEREFORE SATISFY SIMULTANEOUSLY THE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY TWO MEMBE
R STATES, THAT WHOSE FLAG HIS VESSELS FLY AND THAT IN WHICH HE INTENDS TEMPORARILY TO EXERCISE HIS ACTIVITY.

3. SINCE THE DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT APPLIED BY A BODY OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION BETWEEN NATIONAL MARITIME CARRIERS AND THOSE FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE JURISDICTION WHICH MAY BE EXERCISED OVER THE FIRST, BY VIRTUE OF THE LAW OF THE FLAG, IS NOT THE SAME AS THAT WHICH MAY BE EXERCISED OVER THE SECOND, WHICH IS LIMITED TO THAT WHICH MAY BE EXERCISED BY A STATE IN THE WATERS OVER WHICH IT HAS JURISDICTION, NO DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE 9 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, EXISTS. AT ALL EVENTS, THE APPLICATION OF A BODY OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION SOLELY BECAUSE OTHER MEMBER STATES APPLY LESS STRICT PROVISIONS. MOREOVER, WHERE NATIONAL LEGISLATION DOES NOT MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN VESSELS ACCORDING TO WHETHER THEY CARRY GOODS INTERNALLY OR TO OTHER MEMBER STATES, DOES NOT MAKE
ANY DISTINCTION REGARDING SERVICES FOR EXPORTED PRODUCTS AND FOR PRODUCTS MARKETED NATIONALLY AND DOES NOT AFFORD ANY PARTICULAR ADVANTAGES TO THE DOMESTIC MARKET, TO NATIONAL TRANSPORT OPERATIONS OR TO NATIONAL PRODUCTS, THAT LEGISLATION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS RESTRICTING FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO OTHER MEMBER STATES, WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE AFORESAID REGULATION. THE INDIRECT ADVANTAGES WHICH CARRIERS FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES MAY DERIVE FROM THE FACT THAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO LESS STRICT REQUIREMENTS ARE MERELY THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE ABSENCE OF HARMONIZATION OF NATIONAL LAWS TO WHICH THE VARIOUS PROVIDERS OF SERVICES IN THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES IN WHICH THEY ARE ESTABLISHED ARE SUBJECT.

4. ARTICLES 3(F), 7, 30, 48, 52, 59, 62, 84 AND 130R OF THE TREATY AND 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, DO NOT PRECLUDE THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE FROM PROHIBITING ALL VESSELS, REGARDLESS OF THE FLAG WHICH THEY FLY, FROM DISCHARGING HARMFUL CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES INTO ITS TERRITORIAL WATERS AND ITS INTERNAL WATERS, OR FROM IMPOSING THE SAME PROHIBITION ON THE HIGH SEAS ONLY ON VESSELS FLYING THE NATIONAL FLAG, OR, FINALLY, IN THE EVENT OF INFRINGEMENT, FROM PENALIZING MASTERS OF VESSELS WHO ARE NATIONALS OF THAT STATE BY SUSPENDING THEIR PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):