297
case, the ECJ ruled that a Member State taking advantage of the economic rights
to prospect and/or exploit natural resources on that part of the continental shelf
adjacent to it could not avoid the application of EU law provisions designed to
ensure the freedom of movement of persons working on such installations.
84
Secondly, in the Kik case, the ECJ affirmed that the work carried out on board a
pipe-laying vessel could not be treated as work carried out in the territory of a
Member State when the vessel was located above the part of the continental shelf
adjacent to that Member State; moreover, it ruled that, under Art. 79(4) UNCLOS,
first, a coastal state has limited jurisdiction regarding the cables and pipelines
constructed or used in connection with the exploration of its continental shelf or
the exploitation of the latter’s resources and, second, that this jurisdiction did not
extend to a vessel concerned with laying those cables or pipelines.
85
And, thirdly,
in the Bakker case, the ECJ considered that the mere fact that a worker’s activities were performed outside the territory of an EU Member State was not sufficient to exclude the application of EU law on the free movement of workers, as
long as the employment relationship retained a sufficiently close link with the
territory of that state; therefore, that worker could not be deprived of the benefit
of the social insurance provided for by the Member State whose flag the vessel
was flying when that vessel was located in the territorial waters of a state other
than that Member State.
86
– Repression of the pollution caused by ships: Art. 230 UNCLOS was mentioned
in the Commission v. Council case (C-440/05) in relation to the enforcement of
the law against ship-source pollution and the criminal penalties that could be
imposed in one case or another. Finally, the ECJ affirmed that the determination
of the type and level of the criminal penalties applicable in this field did not fall
within the EU’s sphere of competence.
87
– Authorisation of access to EU waters for fishing vessels flying the flag of a third
state: The ECJ analysed Articles 55–75 UNCLOS regarding the EEZ of a state in
the case Parliament and Commission v. Council (joined cases C-103/12 and
C-165/12). These cases arose from the Council’s decision to grant fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of Venezuela in the EEZ off
the coast of French Guiana.
88
– UNCLOS provisions regarding ITLOS: Articles 191, 287(1) and Annex VI
UNCLOS, as well as various aspects regarding the EU’s participation in the
global fisheries scenario, were invoked and analysed by the ECJ in its judgment,
published on 6 October 2015, in the Council v. Commission case (C-73/14),
84 Salemink, para. 36. See also: ECJ, Weber, para. 36; ECJ, Commission v. United Kingdom,
C-6/04, EU:C:2005:626, Judgment, 20 October 2005, para. 117.
85 Kik, paras 40–41.
86 Bakker, paras 28–29.
87 Commission v. Council, paras 9, 17 and 70.
88 Parliament and Commission v. Council. For a detailed analysis of this judgment, see Paasivirta
(2015), pp. 1064–1065, and Oanta (2016), pp. 210–218.
The European Court of Justice and the Interpretation of the United Nations Convention…
case, the ECJ ruled that a Member State taking advantage of the economic rights
to prospect and/or exploit natural resources on that part of the continental shelf
adjacent to it could not avoid the application of EU law provisions designed to
ensure the freedom of movement of persons working on such installations.
84
Secondly, in the Kik case, the ECJ affirmed that the work carried out on board a
pipe-laying vessel could not be treated as work carried out in the territory of a
Member State when the vessel was located above the part of the continental shelf
adjacent to that Member State; moreover, it ruled that, under Art. 79(4) UNCLOS,
first, a coastal state has limited jurisdiction regarding the cables and pipelines
constructed or used in connection with the exploration of its continental shelf or
the exploitation of the latter’s resources and, second, that this jurisdiction did not
extend to a vessel concerned with laying those cables or pipelines.
85
And, thirdly,
in the Bakker case, the ECJ considered that the mere fact that a worker’s activities were performed outside the territory of an EU Member State was not sufficient to exclude the application of EU law on the free movement of workers, as
long as the employment relationship retained a sufficiently close link with the
territory of that state; therefore, that worker could not be deprived of the benefit
of the social insurance provided for by the Member State whose flag the vessel
was flying when that vessel was located in the territorial waters of a state other
than that Member State.
86
– Repression of the pollution caused by ships: Art. 230 UNCLOS was mentioned
in the Commission v. Council case (C-440/05) in relation to the enforcement of
the law against ship-source pollution and the criminal penalties that could be
imposed in one case or another. Finally, the ECJ affirmed that the determination
of the type and level of the criminal penalties applicable in this field did not fall
within the EU’s sphere of competence.
87
– Authorisation of access to EU waters for fishing vessels flying the flag of a third
state: The ECJ analysed Articles 55–75 UNCLOS regarding the EEZ of a state in
the case Parliament and Commission v. Council (joined cases C-103/12 and
C-165/12). These cases arose from the Council’s decision to grant fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of Venezuela in the EEZ off
the coast of French Guiana.
88
– UNCLOS provisions regarding ITLOS: Articles 191, 287(1) and Annex VI
UNCLOS, as well as various aspects regarding the EU’s participation in the
global fisheries scenario, were invoked and analysed by the ECJ in its judgment,
published on 6 October 2015, in the Council v. Commission case (C-73/14),
84 Salemink, para. 36. See also: ECJ, Weber, para. 36; ECJ, Commission v. United Kingdom,
C-6/04, EU:C:2005:626, Judgment, 20 October 2005, para. 117.
85 Kik, paras 40–41.
86 Bakker, paras 28–29.
87 Commission v. Council, paras 9, 17 and 70.
88 Parliament and Commission v. Council. For a detailed analysis of this judgment, see Paasivirta
(2015), pp. 1064–1065, and Oanta (2016), pp. 210–218.
The European Court of Justice and the Interpretation of the United Nations Convention…