Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:01:52.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commission v. Netherlands, Case C-299/02

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Alvin Kan
Alvin Kan*
Affiliation:
University of Heidelberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 99 , Issue 4 , October 2005 , pp. 867 - 873
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Treaty Establishing The European Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 UNTS 11, as amended by Treaty of Amsterdam, Oct. 2, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 340) 1, as amended by Treaty of Nice, Feb. 26, 2001, 2001 O.J. (C 80) 1, consolidated version reprinted in 2002 O.J. (C 325) 33 [hereinafter EC Treaty]. The references below are to the consolidated version of the Treaty.

2 Case C-299/02, Commission v. Netherlands (Eur. Ct. Justice Oct. 14, 2004) [hereinafter Judgment]. See the Web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, <http://www.curia.eu.int/en/transitpage.htm>, for its recent judgments and the opinions of the advocate general.

3 Article 43 of the EC Treaty provides, in part:

Within the framework of the provisions set out [in Articles 44 to 48], restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be prohibited. Such prohibition shall also apply to restrictions on the setting-up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any Member State established in the territory of any Member State.

4 UN Convention on The Law of The Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, reprinted in 21 ILM 1261 (1982) [hereinafter LOS Convention].

5 Article 311 (1) of the Code of Commerce provides that a “ship has Netherlands nationality where the following conditions are fulfilled:”

  • (a)

    (a) the ship belongs as to at least two thirds to one or more natural persons or companies having [Community] or [EEA] nationality;

    . . . . .

  • (c)

    (c) the day-to-day management of the place of business [in the Netherlands] . . . is carried out by one or more natural persons having [Community] or [EEA] nationality.

6 Article 8:169 of the Civil Code provides that “the function of [director] shall cease if.. . he no longer has [Community] or [EEA] nationality or if he establishes his residence outside the [Community] or [EEA] territory.”

7 See Case C-19/92, Kraus v. Land Baden-Wüirttemberg, 1993 ECR 1-1663, para. 32.

8 Article 48 extends the right of establishment to “ [c]ompanies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community.” See Judgment, supra note 2, para. 16 (citing Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd. v. Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen, 1999 ECR 1-1459, para. 18; Case C-208/00, Überseering v. Nordic Construction Co. Baumanagement, 2002 ECR 1-9919, para. 56).

9 Judgment, supra note 2, para. 15.

10 Id., para. 19.

11 [Author’s Note: Article 46(1) provides: “The provisions of this chapter and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action providing for special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.”]

12 Judgment, supra note 2, para. 17; .wCase C-71/76, Thieffry v. Conseil de 1’ordre des avocats de la Cour de Paris, 1977 ECR 765, paras. 12, 15.

13 Judgment, supra note 2, para. 18; see Case C-106/91, Ramrath v. Ministre de la Justice, 1992 ECR 1-3351, paras. 29, 30.

14 Judgment, supra note 2, para. 21.

15 Article 91(1) provides:

Every State shall fix the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships, for the registration of ships in its territory, and for the right to fly its flag. Ships have the nationality of the State whose flag they are entitled to fly. There must exist a genuine link between the State and the ship.

16 Article 94 (1) provides that” [e] very State shall effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag.”

17 Opinion of Advocate General Philippe Léger (May 27, 2004), paras. 51-59, Judgment, supra note 2 [hereinafter Léger Opinion].

18 Judgment, supra note 2, para. 25.

19 In particular, Articles 3(1) (c) (cc) and 4 of Council Regulation 2919/85 (EEC) of 17 October 1985 Laying Down the Conditions for Access to the Arrangements Under the Revised Convention for the Navigation of the Rhine Relating to Vessels Belonging to the Rhine Navigation, 1985 O.J. (L 280) 4; Article 2 (1) (b) (ii) of Council Regulation 3921/91 (EEC) of 16 December 1991 Laying Down the Conditions Under Which Non-resident Carriers May Transport Goods or Passengers by Inland Waterway Within a Member State, 1991 O.J. (L 373) 1; and Article 4(2) of Council Regulation 2407/92 (EEC) of 23 July 1992 on Licensing of Air Carriers, 1992 O.J. (L 240) 1.

20 Judgment, supra note 2, para. 24 (contrary to the Léger Opinion, supra note 17, paras. 71 and 73, which concluded that the Netherlands provision at issue could be regarded as compatible with European law).

21 Id., paras. 26, 36, 37.

22 Id, para. 26.

23 Case C-221/89, Queen v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd., 1991 ECR 1-3905.

24 Id., para 29.

25 Case C-19/92, Kraus v. Land Baden-Württemberg, 1993 ECR 1-1663.

26 Id.; Case C-55/94, Gebhard v. Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Awocati e Procuratori di Milano, 1995 ECR 1-4165; Case C-53/95, Inasti v. Kemmler, 1996 ECR 1-703.

27 See supra note 17.

28 Jürgen Bröhmer, [Commentary on Article 43], para. 12, in Euv/Egv-Kommentar (Christian Calliess & Matthias Ruffert eds., 2002).

29 Id., para. 30.

30 Convention on the High Seas, Apr. 29, 1958, 450 UNTS 82.

31 There is an irony that the Netherlands were the first to suggest the genuine-link concept (employing the expression “genuine connection”) in a draft article on the nationality of ships, noting that account had to be taken of the ownership of the vessel. [1956] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 63.

32 The genuine-link requirement has been subject to extensive writing. It is beyond the scope of this report to present the topic in detail. For a detailed discussion of this issue, see Meyers, Herman, The Nationality of Ships (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Nikolaos, St. Skourtos, Billig-Flaggen-Praxis Und Staatliche Verleihungsfreiheit (1990).Google Scholar

33 [1956] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 259 (Art. 29).

34 David, D. Caron, Ships: Nationality and Status, in 4 Encyclopedia of Public International Law 400, 401 (Bernhardt, Rudolf ed., 1995)Google Scholar (containing further references).

35 Li, K. X. & Wonham, J., New Developments in Ship Registration, 14 Int’l J. Mar. & Coastal L. 137, 141 (1999).Google Scholar

36 M/V Saiga (No. 2) (Saint Vincent v. Guinea), Judgment, ITLOS Case No. 2, para. 83 (July 1, 1999), at <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ITLOS/Judg_E.htm>, reprinted in 38 ILM 323 (1999).

37 Léger Opinion, supra note 17, paras. 52-54.

38 See Bernard, H. Oxman & Bantz, Vincent, Case Report: The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), 94 AJIL 140 (2000).Google Scholar

39 M/V Saiga (No. 2), para. 83.

40 Feb. 7, 1986 (not yet in force), at <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/seldoc/1986/3401.html>.