«(Failure of a State to fulfil obligations – Registration of vessels – Right to fly the French flag – Nationality requirements for owner and crew – Failure to comply with the judgment in Case 167/73)»

1.. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Registration of a vessel in a Member State – Conditions relating to the nationality of the owners or the place in which they have their seat – Not permissible (EC Treaty, Arts 6, 48, 52, 58 and 221; Commission Regulation No 1251/90, Art. 7; Council Directive 75/34, Art. 7)

2.. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil – Retention of a national provision incompatible with Community law – Justification on the basis of administrative practice ensuring the application of the Treaty – Not permissible

3.. Actions against Member States for failure to fulfil obligations – Judgment of the Court finding the failure – Period allowed for compliance (EC Treaty, Art. 171)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 7 March 1996 (1)

((Failure of a State to fulfil obligations – Registration of vessels – Right to fly the French flag – Nationality requirements for owner and crew – Failure to comply with the judgment in Case 167/73))

In Case C-334/94,

applicant,

v

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that─ by retaining in force laws, regulations and administrative provisions restricting the right to register a vessel in the national register and to fly the national flag to vessels more than half the shares in which are owned by natural persons of French nationality or which are owned by legal persons having a seat in France or legal persons a certain proportion of whose directors, administrators or managers must be French nationals or, in the case of a private limited company, limited partnership, or general commercial or non-commercial partnership, more than half of whose capital must be held by French citizens or all of whose capital must be held by French persons who fulfil certain conditions, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6, 48, 52, 58 and 221 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 402) and Article 7 of Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974 concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to remain in the territory of another Member State after having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed capacity (OJ 1975 L 14, p. 10), and─ by not taking the appropriate measures to comply with the judgment of 4 April 1974 in Case 167/73

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

composed of: C.N. Kakouris (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G.F. Mancini, F.A. Schockweiler, J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges,

Advocate General: N. Fennelly,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 November 1995,

gives the following

However, the seat may be situated in another State where, pursuant to an agreement between France and such State, a company or firm constituted under French law may lawfully carry on its activity in the territory of the other State and have its seat there and where it designates an address in France for all administrative or judicial purposes relating to the ownership and condition of the vessel.In addition, regardless of where the seat is situated, the following must be French citizens:

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

hereby:

Kakouris

Mancini

Schockweiler

Murray

Ragnemalm

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 7 March 1996.

R. Grass

C.N. Kakouris

Registrar

President of the Sixth Chamber