Viking Line Abp v International Transport Workers’ Federation and Another: ComC 16 Jun 2005

The claimant sought an injunction against the respondent international union of trades unions to restrain industrial action intended to prevent its transfer of registration of a ferry plying between Finland and Estonia to Estonia. It sought also a declaration that such action would be contrary to the free movement requirements of the EU Treaty.
Held: The anticipated action would amount to a restriction on the claimants freedomto establish guaranteed by the treaty. Article 43 was directly effective in member states, and therefore the claimant was entitled to its declaratory and injunctive reliefs. In reliance on the free movement Articles, particularly Article 43 of the EC Treaty the court granted to the claimants permanent injunctions restraining the Finnish Seamen’s Union and the International Transport Workers’ Federation from taking industrial action. The industrial action threatened by the two trade unions imposed restrictions on the freedom of movement of establishment contrary to Article 43, and also in the alternative, the free movement of workers and the free provision of services contrary to Articles 39 and 49, and that it, and thus threat of such action, would be unlawful.
In reliance on the free movement Articles, particularly Article 43 of the EC Treaty the court granted to the claimants permanent injunctions restraining the Finnish Seamen’s Union and the International Transport Workers’ Federation from taking industrial action. The industrial action threatened by the two trade unions imposed restrictions on the freedom of movement of establishment contrary to Article 43, and also in the alternative, the free movement of workers and the free provision of services contrary to Articles 39 and 49, and that it, and thus threat of such action, would be unlawful.
Gloster J
Times 22-Jun-2005, [2005] EWHC 1222 (Comm)
Bailii
EC Treaty 843
Citing:
CitedUnion Royale Belge des societes de Football Association and others v Bosman and others ECJ 15-Dec-1995
bosmanECJ1995
A request for the Court to order a measure of inquiry under Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure, made by a party after the close of the oral procedure, can be admitted only if it relates to facts which may have a decisive influence and which the . .
CitedRoman Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA ECJ 6-Jun-2000
Europa Under the preliminary ruling procedure provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 234 EC), it is for the national courts alone, which are seised of a case and which must . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromInternational Transport Workers’ Federation and Another v Viking Line Abp and Another CA 3-Nov-2005
An order had been made restraining the defendant trades unions from taking industrial action. The unions said the UK court had no jurisdiction.
Held: ‘It is at first sight surprising that the English Commercial Court should be the forum in . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.228021