5. Discussion and conclusions
Effective and safe maritime transport is indispensable for global and European trade in goods. In the EU, maritime freight transport services account for more than two-thirds of freight transport performance. Maritime and road transport represent over 90% of total freight transport performance in the EU.(1) Eurostat (February 2026) Freight transport statistics – modal split <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Freight_transport_statistics_-_modal_split>. Sea carriage of passengers is also important, especially for Italy and the Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea.(2) Eurostat (27 November 2025), Maritime passengers in EU up by 24.3 million in 2024. <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20251127-1>. The sea routes between the UK and the EU carried 18.4 million international sea passengers in 2024.(3) UK Department for Transport (30 July 2025), Sea passenger statistics: international sea passengers 2024 <https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/sea-passenger-statistics-all-routes-2024/sea-passenger-statistics-international-sea-passengers-2024>. For the EEA States Norway and Iceland maritime transport is also crucial for sea carriage of cargo and passengers.(4) The Norwegian Coastal Administration, Maritime transport <https://www.kystverket.no/sjotransport-og-havn/sjotransport/sjotransportbransjen/>.
Obviously, the smooth flow of maritime transport services is fully dependent on non-discriminatory, transparent and fair legal and regulatory frameworks. This is fully recognized in the Regulation 4055/86 and in the provisions of the TCA. As cases such as Vlaams Gewest show, EU law seeks to ensure that companies may access to shipping routes and ports of other Member States and operate there on equal conditions. Crucially, EU law provides shipping companies with actionable rights against unlawful restrictions of free movement imposed by Member States.
The Vlaams Gewest ruling contributes to the existing and well-established case law of the CJEU on the scope of Regulation 4055/86. The Court does not deviate from its earlier approach to the lawfulness of indistinctly applicable charges under EU law; in this case, VTS services. The Court predictably spells out the criteria to be met for such charges to be acceptable as a proportionate measure based on objectives of overriding public interest.
Importantly, in this case, the Court also has an opportunity to provide a clarification on the implications of ‘Brexit’ for operators of international maritime transport services established in the UK, but operating their services in the EU. The Court examines the legal position of third-country operators of shipping services regulated by free trade agreements with the EU.(5) The UK’s trade relations with the EEA EFTA States Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are governed by the Free Trade Agreement concluded in 2021: <https://www.efta.int/trade-relations/free-trade-network/united-kingdom>. This judgment is significant for the future policy of the EU in the international maritime transport sector, as the EU Industrial Maritime Strategy of 2026 emphasizes the Commission’s goal to include comprehensive commitments on international maritime transport services in free trade agreements, improving market access conditions and non-discriminatory treatment of EU operators in third countries.(6) The EU Industrial Maritime Strategy, COM (2026) 111 final, nr. 3.5, p. 11 <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=comnat:COM_2026_0111_FIN>. Thus, Vlaams Gewest explains some of the aspects of such agreements, using the example of the EU-UK TCA, but also illustrates issues which need to be considered in future negotiations, such as the effect of free trade agreement provisions in the EU legal order.
It should be noted that Regulation 4055/86 provides for the Council to extend the provisions of this Regulation to nationals of a third country who provide maritime transport services and are established in the EU. Although this provision probably aims to include nationals of OECD-countries, its wording is broad enough to cover any nationality, making it potentially relevant for all third States entering into free trade agreements with the EU.
As described earlier, the Court has declined to apply Regulation 4055/86 to an operator from the UK which no no longer meets the criteria for the EU connection set out in Article 1 of the Regulation. Following expiry of the transition period set in the Withdrawal Agreement, the provisions of the TCA, and not the Regulation, now apply to such operators, preventing those operators from invoking Article 191 of the TCA directly in national courts of Member States. Due to the absence of the direct effect, specified in the TCA, disagreements on the interpretation of TCA provisions will have to be resolved through the inter-State dispute settlement mechanism established by the TCA. At the same time, as Advocate General Biondi points out in his opinion in Vlaams Gewest, the national authorities should still interpret domestic law, in so far as possible, in conformity with Article 191 of the TCA.(7) Para 59 of the Opinion. The latter obligation to conform interpretation also follows from the general international legal obligation of States to ensure the effectiveness of their international agreements.