Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2020:775
Date: 2020-10-01
Language of the case: Italian
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Approximation of laws;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-155/19 — 1 
Case C-155/19 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
22 February 2019 
Referring court:  
Consiglio di Stato (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
17 January 2019 
Appellants:  
F.I.G.C. — Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio 
Consorzio Ge.Se.Av. s.c. a r.l. 
Respondent:  
De Vellis Servizi Globali s.r.l. 
Intervening parties:  
Consorzio Ge.Se.Av. s.c. a r.l., Comitato Olimpico Nazionale 
Italiano — C.O.N.I. 
F.I.G.C. — Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio 
  
Subject-matter of the main proceedings 
Two appeals, lodged by the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (the Italian 
Football Federation, ‘the FIGC’) and Consorzio Ge.Se.Av. s.c. a r.l. (‘Consorzio 
Ge.Se.Av.’), respectively against judgment No 4101/2018 of the Tribunale 
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — sede di Roma (Lazio — Rome Regional 
Administrative Court) concerning the negotiated multiple procedure, opened by 
the FIGC, for the award of the contract for porterage services for the team 
accompanying the national football squads, and at the FIGC’s store, for a period 
of three years. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-155/19 
 
2  
Subject-matter and legal basis of the reference 
The possibility of classifying the national sports federations, and in particular the 
FIGC, as bodies governed by public law within the meaning of Article 2(1)(4) of 
Directive 2014/24/EU and Article 3(1)(d) of the Codice (italiano) dei contratti 
pubblici ((Italian) Code on public contracts), and whether, therefore, the FIGC is 
required to apply the rules on public and open tendering (that is to say the rules on 
advertising invitations to tender) in respect of the award of services contracts, in 
which case it would be subject to the jurisdiction of the administrative courts as 
regards appeals against decisions awarding such contracts, pursuant to 
Article 133(1)(e)(1) of the Codice del processo amministrativo (Code of 
Administrative Procedure). 
Questions referred 
First question 
- On the basis of the characteristics of national sports law, can the Federazione 
calcistica italiana (Italian Football Federation, ‘FIGC’) be classified as a body 
governed by public law in so far as it was established for the specific purpose of 
meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial 
character? 
- In particular, is the requirement relating to the purpose of the body satisfied in 
respect of the Federation, even in the absence of a formal act establishing a public 
authority and despite its membership base, on account of its incorporation into a 
sector (sports) organised in accordance with models of a public-law nature and the 
fact that it is required to comply with the principles and rules drawn up by the 
Comitato olimpico nationale italiano (Italian National Olympic Committee, ‘the 
CONI’) and international sporting bodies, as a result of the recognition, for 
sporting purposes, of the national public entity? 
- Furthermore, can this requirement arise in relation to a sports federation such as 
the Federazione italiana giuoco calcio, which has the ability to fund itself, in 
respect of an activity of no significance in the context of public law, such as that 
at issue in this case, or must the requirement that the application of the rules on 
public and open tendering be ensured in any event, where such an entity awards 
any type of contract to third parties, be regarded as taking precedence? 
Second question 
- On the basis of the legal relationship between the CONI and the FIGC 
(Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio), does the former have a dominant influence 
over the latter in the light of the legal powers relating to recognition of the 
undertaking for sporting purposes, approval of annual budgets, supervision of the 
management and proper functioning of the bodies, and placing the entity into 
receivership? 
F.I.G.C. 
 
3 
- On the other hand, are those powers insufficient to meet the requirement relating 
to the dominant public influence of a body governed by public law on account of 
the significant participation of the presidents and representatives of the sports 
federations in the key bodies of the Olympic Committee? 
Provisions of EU law relied on 
Directive 2014/24/EU, in particular Article 2(1)(4)(a), (b) and (c). 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Decreto legislativo 18 aprile 2016, n. 50 (‘Codice dei contratti pubblici’) 
(Legislative Decree No 50 of 18 April 2016 (‘Code on public contracts’)), in 
particular: Article 3(1)(d) which establishes the concept of a body governed by 
public law; Article 3(1)(d)(2) on the requirement relating to legal personality; 
Article 3(1)(d)(1) relating to the element of purpose; and Article 3(1)(d)(3) on the 
requirement relating to dominant public influence. 
Decreto legislativo 2 luglio 2010, n. 104 (Legislative Decree No 104 of 2 July 
2010), in particular: Article 133(1)(e)(1); Article 133(1)(z), under which exclusive 
jurisdiction for the following is conferred on the administrative courts: ‘disputes 
concerning decisions of the Italian National Olympic Committee or sports 
federations and not reserved to judicial bodies in sport and excluding those 
relating to property relationships between clubs, associations and athletes’; and 
Article 133(1)(z-septies). 
Decreto legislativo 23 luglio 1999, n. 242, legge di riordino del Comitato olimpico 
nazionale (Legislative Decree No 242 of 23 July 1999, the law reorganising the 
National Olympic Committee), in particular: Articles 1 and 2, Articles 4 to 8, 
Article 13, Article 15. 
Statuto del CONI (Statute of the CONI), in particular: Article 22; Article 23 on 
the tasks of the national sports federations, that is to say ‘the admission and 
affiliation of clubs, sports associations and individual members; removal for any 
reason and changes to provisions on admission or affiliation; monitoring of the 
proper conduct of competitions and professional sporting championships; the use 
of public support; the prevention and combating of doping: activities relating to 
Olympic and high-level training, and the training of technicians; the use and 
management of public sports facilities’. 
Legge 16 febbraio 1942, n. 426 (Law No 426 of 16 February 1942), in particular 
Article 5 thereof, which classified the federations as bodies of the CONI. 
Decreto-legge 19 agosto 2003, n. 220 (Decree-Law No 220 of 19 August 2003), in 
particular Article 1(1): ‘The Republic recognises and promotes the autonomy of 
the national rules of sport as a constituent part of the international rules of sport 
overseen by the International Olympic Committee’; Article 1(2): ‘The relationship 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-155/19 
 
4  
between the rules of sport and the Republic’s legal rules shall be governed by the 
principle of autonomy, except in cases of relevance [to the latter] of personal 
rights associated with sport’; and Article 3, as amended by Article 1(647) of legge 
30 dicembre 2018, n. 145, sulla ripartizione della giurisdizione tra il giudice 
amministrativo e il giudice sportivo (Law No 145 of 30 December 2018 on the 
division of jurisdiction between administrative courts and sports tribunals). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 By an action brought before the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio 
(Lazio Regional Administrative Court), the company De Vellis Servizi Globali 
s.r.l. (‘De Vellis Servizi Globali’) challenged the decisions concerning the 
negotiated multiple procedure, opened by the FIGC, for the award of the contract 
for porterage services for the team accompanying the national football squads and 
at the federal store in Rome for a period of three years, for which that company 
had been invited to tender. It challenged the manner in which the tendering 
procedure was conducted, alleging infringement of the advertising rules down in 
the Code on public contracts, and challenged the award of the contract to 
Consorzio GE.SE.AV. 
2 By judgment No 4101/2018, the Regional Administrative Court allowed the 
action brought by De Vellis Servizi Globali and annulled the award of the contract 
to Consorzio GE.SE.AV. In particular, in that judgment the Regional 
Administrative Court categorised the FIGC as a body governed by public law, 
dismissed the objection alleging lack of jurisdiction raised by the defendants, and 
annulled the decisions in the tendering procedure, as requested by De Vellis 
Servizi Globali. 
3 The FIGC and Consorzio GE.SE.AV lodged separate appeals against that 
judgment. 
The essential arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
4 Both the appellants challenge the finding that the dispute falls within the 
jurisdiction of the administrative courts and that the FIGC can be classified as a 
body governed by public law. As regards the substance, they challenge the fact 
that the action brought by De Vellis Servizi Globali was upheld at first instance. 
5 In particular, the FIGC disputes the finding that it is subject to the dominant 
influence of the CONI, arguing that, on the contrary, the relationship is the other 
way around since the FIGC sits on the council and board of the CONI, that is to 
say the highest bodies thereof. In support of its arguments, the FIGC recalls the 
question referred for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice by the Corte dei 
Conti (Court of Auditors) in its judgment of 10 October 2017. The FIGC also 
challenges the finding that the powers which the CONI has over it are the same as 
the supervision laid down for a body governed by public law and notes that the 
F.I.G.C. 
 
5 
approval of the FIGC’s annual budget by the CONI is limited to verifying the use 
made of public support which, for the FIGC, is minor. 
Succinct presentation of the reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
6 In the Italian system the task of organising and developing national sport is 
entrusted to a public entity, the CONI, which has legal personality under public 
law and is subject to the supervision of the Ministro per i beni e le attività culturali 
(Minister for Cultural Heritage and Activities), pursuant to Legislative Decree 
No 242/1999. The CONI also comprises the confederation of the various national 
sports federations, each of which is competent for a sport and the organisation of 
competitions related to it. They are by nature associations with legal personality 
under private law, subject, on a residual basis, to the Civil Code. Furthermore, 
even though they are classified as private associations, the sports federations 
perform tasks in the context of public law and cannot operate for profit.  
7 On the one hand, there is profound interpenetration of the bodies of the CONI and 
the sports federations: the presidents of the later sit on the National Council of the 
CONI, whilst representatives of the sports federations sit on the National Board, 
the body responsible for overall guidance of the CONI’s administrative and 
management activities. On other hand, the CONI has, however, a series of powers 
over the sports federations. First of all, the latter are recognised, for sporting 
purposes, by the CONI’s National Council and the relevant annual budgets are 
approved by its National Board (Article 15(3) and (5) respectively of Legislative 
Decree No 242/1999). Furthermore, the sports federations ‘carry on sporting 
activities in accordance with the decisions and guidance of the IOC [International 
Olympic Committee], the international federations and the CONI, also having 
regard to the significance of certain types of activity in the context of public law’ 
(Article 15(1) of Legislative Decree No 242/1999) and have autonomy over 
statutes and regulations, which is nonetheless to be exercised ‘in accordance with 
the national and international rules on sport’ (see that paragraph 1), and ‘in 
compliance with the core principles of the National Council’ (Article 22 of the 
CONI’s Statute). As regards their general activities, the sports federations are 
subject to the CONI’s power of supervision concerning their ‘proper functioning’, 
and that supervision can also result in receivership where there are serious 
management irregularities and infringements of the rules of sport or where it is 
impossible to guarantee the ‘proper launch and conduct of sporting events’ 
(Article 23(3) of the CONI’s Statute). Lastly, as regards the conduct of activities 
‘of significance in the context of public law’ identified in Article 23 of the CONI’s 
Statute, the sports federations ‘shall comply with the guidance and checks of the 
CONI and operate in accordance with the principles of impartiality and 
transparency’, even though that significance in the context of public law ‘does not 
alter the ordinary private-law regime governing individual decisions and the 
associated personal rights’ (Article 23(1-bis) of the Statute). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-155/19 
 
6  
8 As regards jurisdiction in sporting matters, it should be pointed out that ‘[t]he 
relationship between the rules of sport and the Republic’s rules of law shall be 
governed by the principle of autonomy, except in cases of relevance [to the latter] 
of personal rights associated with rules of sport’ (Decree-Law No 220/2003, 
Article 1(2)). In particular, the Italian legislature recently took action on the 
relationship between sports tribunals and State courts in the sense that it limited 
the autonomy of the former to the benefit of the latter. The power to rule on 
disputes ‘concerning decisions to admit to or exclude from professional 
competitions professional clubs or sports associations, or howsoever affecting 
participation in professional competitions’ is ‘in any event’ reserved to the State 
courts [Article 3(1) of Decree-Law No 220/2003 and Article 133(1) (z-septies) of 
Legislative Decree No 104/2010]. 
9 The referring court asks whether the sports federations, and in particular the 
FIGC, can be classified as bodies governed by public law which are therefore 
subject to the rules on public and open tendering relating to the award of public 
service contracts. It also highlights the cross-border interest of the present dispute 
which relates not only to the contract for services at issue, but more generally the 
contractual activity of the Italian sports associations and that of the FIGC in 
particular. 
10 In the view of the referring court, it is clear that the FIGC satisfies the requirement 
relating to legal personality under Article 2(1)(4)(b) of Directive 2014/24/EU, 
whereas it is disputed whether the other two requirements for the existence of a 
body governed by public law, that is to say the element relating to purpose 
(whether the federation is established ‘for the specific purpose of meeting needs in 
the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character’ within the 
meaning of Article 2[1][4](a) of Directive 2014/24/EU) and the requirement 
relating to ‘dominant public influence’ ([whether] the management of the FIGC is 
‘subject to management supervision’ by the CONI, pursuant to Article 2[1][4](c) 
of Directive 2014/24/EU) are met. 
11 In that regard, the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) states that the FIGC, 
unlike other sports federations, does not obtain most of its funding from the CONI 
and, given football’s capacity to mobilise major financial recourses, is by contrast 
able to fund itself. Furthermore, not more than half its bodies are appointed by the 
CONI. 
12 First, as regards the requirement relating to purpose, the Council of State notes 
that the concept of ‘established specifically’ and the functional link with the 
‘general interest’ relate to a decision in the exercise of public powers, that is to 
say a law or a judgment, which, in the case of the sports federations, does not 
appear to exist, in so far as under Article 15(2) of Legislative Decree No 242/1999 
they are associations with legal personality under private law, subject, on a 
residual basis, to the Civil Code. In the view of the Council of State, the Italian 
legislature considered that the organisation of the individual sports and the 
competitions relating to them are an expression of civil society, of which the State 
F.I.G.C. 
 
7 
merely recognises the established structures, in accordance with the procedures 
for recognising legal persons under private law, on the basis of requirements 
entirely predefined by law, in respect of which the court having jurisdiction can 
only rule on whether or not they are met, without assessing the interests with the 
view to purposes of general interest being pursued. In support of this stance, the 
Council of State points out that the ‘significance in the context of public law’ of 
the activities which the sports federations carry on to safeguard the general 
interests attributed institutionally to the CONI ‘does not alter the ordinary 
private-law regime governing individual decisions and the associated personal 
rights’ (Article 23(1-bis) of the CONI Statute). That provision of the statute is 
connected with the general autonomy of entities established by law and is an 
immediate consequence of their separate existence from the State. 
13 In that respect, the Council of State points out that there is, however, an element 
of uncertainty. Although autonomous, the sports federations are nonetheless 
required by law to pursue objectives in the public interest laid down in law, which 
form the basis for their establishment and are the source of their public authority. 
The activities of ‘significance in the context of public law’ entrusted to the sports 
federations under Article 23 of the Statute of the CONI are of general relevance, 
connected with the organisation of sport at national level, which is attributed 
institutionally to the CONI. They are activities which appear to cover the entire 
field of operation of the sports federations and the very reasons for their 
establishment. Every other activity, including the porterage service for the 
national football squads at issue in the main proceedings, appears instrumental as 
regards the aforementioned tasks of ‘significance in the context of public law’, to 
the point of being subsumed within them. Therefore, in the view of the Council of 
State, the formal classification in law does not determine whether or not public 
character is attributed to a person established by that law. Also from the point of 
view of EU law, the status of the body governed by public law, in the field of 
public contracts, is independent of any private nature of the person awarding a 
contract and, through the requirement relating to purpose under discussion, 
requires that consideration be given to the actual substance of its powers. In that 
regard, the referring court recalls the principle laid down by the Court of Justice in 
the judgment of 15 January 1998, Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria and Others v 
Strohal Rotationsdruck, C-44/96, ECLI:EU:C:1998:4, in which it ruled that an 
undertaking having special and exclusive rights, to which national law attributed 
tasks in the public interest, must be considered a body governed by public law 
even where those tasks constitute only part of the activities of the undertaking 
which, in other respects, operates on the market. 
14 In support of that second interpretation, the Council of State observes that sports 
federations, in performing those tasks, are required to comply with the ‘decisions 
and guidance of the IOC, the international federations and the CONI’ and that, in 
carrying on the activities of ‘significance in the context of public law’, they are 
required to comply with the ‘the guidance and checks of the CONI’ and observe 
the public-law principles of ‘impartiality and transparency’ for purposes in the 
general interest. In that respect, the Council of State also recalls the powers of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-155/19 
 
8  
supervision which the CONI has over the sports federations, which are 
comparable to the relationship between bodies within a legal person governed by 
public law (approval of the annual budget, supervision of management and 
compliance with the rules on sport, and receivership of the federal entity). Lastly, 
the Council of State observes that sports federations are, before being recognised 
as associations governed by private law, subject to recognition ‘for sporting 
purposes’ by the CONI. Therefore, recognition for sporting purposes could be 
compared to the establishment, provided for when applying the requirement 
relating to purpose, of a body governed by public law. 
15 Consequently, the Council of State finds that, although classified in law as 
associations governed by private law and organised according to a model based on 
freedom as to the objective pursued, the sports federations have in fact an 
institutional nature determined by law or decision of the authority (or the 
international sports bodies), not only as regards the essential structure but also the 
main areas of action and the methods by which that action is to be carried out, 
with the consequent removal or reduction of the organisational scope and freedom 
inherent in private autonomy. 
16 However, the Council of State considers that, whilst it could be held, on the one 
hand, that the provisions under examination simply serve overall to ensure the 
proper performance of the tasks of significance in the context of public law 
entrusted to the sports federations on the basis of an exhaustive list, it could be 
held, on the other, as regards the remaining activities, including the activity 
serving to award the contract for the porterage services, that a general status of 
entity governed by private law remains, with no obligation to meet needs in the 
general interest or observe the principles of impartiality and transparency. This 
could apply especially to the FIGC on account of its ability to fund itself in the 
sense that the requirements relating to compliance with the rules on public and 
open tendering might not apply to it. In that respect, the Council of State recalls 
the abovementioned judgment in Case C-44/96, in which the Court of Justice 
ruled that a company in which the company on which special and inclusive rights 
were conferred has a holding is not a body governed by public law on the ground 
that the general interests met by the company in which the holding is held were 
commercial in nature. Consequently, the Council of State considers that it is 
necessary to establish whether the relationship between the CONI and the sports 
federations, as defined in law, rather than on the basis of the relationship of 
control between bodies or similar, draws all the activities of the sports federations 
into the public-law sphere of the CONI and whether this could apply in particular 
to the FIGC given the prevalence of its own resources over funding from the 
CONI. 
17 Secondly, as regards the requirement relating to the dominant public influence of 
the CONI, by virtue of its powers over the sports federations, the Council of State 
observes that there is a great deal of uncertainty in that regard, primarily on 
account of the interpenetration of the relevant bodies expressed in the composition 
of the National Council and Board of the CONI and the fact that the CONI’s 
F.I.G.C. 
 
9 
power of supervision relates to the ‘proper functioning’ of the sports federations 
in general. Consequently, contrary to the FIGC’s contention, the Council of State 
finds that that supervision is not limited merely to monitoring that public 
resources are properly managed, when approving the annual budget, and can 
include placing a sports federation in receivership. In that regard, the Council of 
State observes that the power to place in receivership is provided for also where a 
sports federation is unable to ensure the ‘proper launch and conduct of sporting 
events’, that is to say in respect of that activity of a sports federation in which the 
public interest in the organisation of sport is particularly relevant. In addition, a 
further cause of uncertainty is the fact that, notwithstanding the abovementioned 
composition of the main bodies of the CONI, the relevant associated bodies must 
fulfil the official obligations attaching to them and that the CONI, in turn, is 
subject to supervision by the Minister for Cultural Heritage and Activities who 
‘can order the dissolution of the national board and the removal of the president 
of the CONI for serious and persistent failure to comply with the law and the 
rules, for serious administrative irregularities, for failure to perform functions, for 
serious administrative deficiencies such as to compromise the normal functioning 
of the entity, or for making it impossible for the bodies of the entity to function’, 
pursuant to Article 13 of Law No 242/1999.