On 22 January 2026, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑413/24, Vlaams Gewest v P&O North Sea Ferries Limited and P&O Ferries Limited, on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86, Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 191 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the  United Kingdom. The request has been made in two sets of proceedings between Vlaams Gewest (Flemish Region), on the one hand, and P&O North Sea Ferries Limited and P&O Ferries Limited (together “P&O”), on the other, concerning the payment of invoices in respect of a charge for the mandatory use of the services of a vessel traffic services system (Verkeersbegeleidingssysteem, VBS), due from vessels that are bound for ports of the Flemish Region covered by that system and that depart from a port situated in a Member State other than Belgium.

P&O is a company incorporated under English law which is active in Belgium in the maritime passenger and freight transport sector between the United Kingdom and continental Europe, serving, inter alia, the route between the port of Zeebrugge and the United Kingdom. Since 1996, the Flemish Region has issued P&O with invoices in respect of the charge payable for the mandatory use of the services of the VBS, which the company has systematically refused to pay in respect of maritime traffic to or from Zeebrugge. Consequently, the Flemish Region brought an action before the ondernemingsrechtbank Gent, afdeling Oostende (Business Court of Ghent, Ostend Division; the “referring court”) seeking an order requiring P&O to pay those invoices, which have remained outstanding since 30 April 1996.

In light of the need to interpret the relevant European legislation, therefore, the referring court decided to stay the proceedings and to ask to the Court of Justice whether Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86, read in conjunction with Article 56 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that maritime traffic that is bound for designated ports of a Member State and that departs from ports situated in other Member States is subject to the payment, in respect of the mandatory use of the services of a vessel traffic services system, of a charge which is calculated solely on the basis of the length of the vessel, to the exclusion of any other factor, and from which maritime traffic between those designated ports is exempt.

According to the Court, by imposing the charge payable for the mandatory use of the services of the VBS solely on vessels of a certain length sailing between a port situated in a Member State other than the Kingdom of Belgium and a Flemish port, the national legislation provides for a difference in treatment depending on whether or not the route taken by the vessel concerned is domestic, thereby applying less favourable rules to transport services between a Flemish port and the port of a Member State other than the Kingdom of Belgium than those applied to transport services between Flemish ports. Consequently, the legislation concerned impedes or renders less attractive the provision of services supplied by a provider established in another Member State, and therefore constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services.