1. Introduction
In the Case C-413/24 Vlaams Gewest v P&O North Sea Ferries Limited,(1) C-413/24 Vlaams Gewest v P&O North Sea Ferries Limited, P&O Ferries Limited, judgment of 22 January 2026. the EU Court of Justice (CJEU, or the Court) issued a preliminary ruling on the questions submitted by the referring Belgian court in the proceedings between the claimant, the Flemish region, and the defendant, the shipping company P&O Ferries Limited and P&O North Sea Ferries Limited (its Belgian subsidiary). The case concerned the lawfulness under both Regulation 4055/86 on the free movement of international maritime transport services(2) Regulation 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 [1986] OJ L 378, 1-3. and Article 56 TFEU(3) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C 326/47. of the indistinctly applicable national charge for vessel traffic services (VTS) in a Flemish port. The case also concerned the application of the international maritime transport services provisions of the EU- UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement,(4) Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, on the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on the other part, adopted on 30 December 2020, in force 1 May 2021 [2021] OJ L 149/10. adopted following the United Kingdom (UK)’s withdrawal from the EU (known as ‘Brexit’), since the defendant, the shipping company, was a national of the UK.
Although, in the Vlaams Gewest case, the Court generally confirmed the well-established interpretation of EU law rules on the freedom of movement of international maritime transport services, the judgment is worth taking note of. The Court explains whether, and by what criteria, national provisions constituting a restriction on free movement of services may be justified. Importantly, this case illustrates the implications of ‘Brexit’ on the freedom of movement of international maritime transport services: the defendant is a UK shipping company operating ships from and to the EU Member State concerned both before and after the expiry of the transition period in the EU-UK arrangements. Thus, the case allowed the EU Court to determine whether freedom to provide maritime transport services still applies under the same conditions following the UK’s departure from EU.
This article will first briefly present the factual and legal background of the Vlaams Gewest case (Section 2). Then, it will explore the CJEU’s approach and reasoning in the questions referred to it in the case: the concept of restriction of the free movement of international maritime transport services and the criteria for lawfulness under EU law of such restrictions (Section 3). The Court’s analysis of the (non-)application of Regulation 4055/86 to individuals established in the UK, and the discussion of the effects of the cooperation agreement between the EU and the UK, are presented in Section 4. Section 5 contains a short comment and conclusions.