Order — ECLI:EU:C:2015:519
Date: 2015-07-16
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Free movement of capital;Freedom to provide services;Free movement of workers;Fundamental rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Daniele Striani and Others, RFC Sérésien ASBL v Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA) (Case C-299/15) Language of the case: French Referring court Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Daniele Striani and Others, RFC Sérésien ASBL Defendants: Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA) Questions referred Must Article 101 TFEU (or Article 102 TFEU) be interpreted as meaning that the UEFA rule known as the ‘break-even requirement’ or ‘break-even rule’ infringes that provision of EC law in so far as the UEFA rule gives rise to a restriction of competition (or the abuse of a dominant position), in particular a restriction ‘by its object’ in that it limits the right to invest, which is either ‘by its object’ anticompetitive or is not necessary for the achievement of the objectives pursued by UEFA, namely the long-term financial stability of football clubs and the sporting integrity of UEFA’s competitions — or, in the alternative, which is not proportionate to the achievement of those objectives? Must Articles 63, 56 and 45 TFEU (as well as Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union) be interpreted as meaning that the UEFA rule known as the ‘break-even requirement’ or ‘break-even rule’ infringes those provisions of EC law in so far as that UEFA rule gives rise to an obstacle to freedom of movement (capital, services, persons) which is not necessary for the attainment of the objectives pursued by UEFA, namely the long-term financial stability of football clubs and the sporting integrity of UEFA’s competitions (and which is not justified by ‘overriding grounds of public interest’) or, alternatively, an obstacle which is not proportionate to the achievement of those objectives? Must the above provisions of EC law (or some of them) be interpreted as meaning that those provisions (or some of them) are infringed by Articles 65 and 66 of the UEFA regulations entitled ‘UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations’ in so far as the UEFA rule — even if a restriction or obstacle to which it gives rise is logically connected to the protection of the sporting integrity of UEFA interclub competitions — is disproportionate and/or discriminatory in so far as it gives preference to the payment of certain creditors and, as a corollary, treats the payment of non-protected creditors, in particular football agents, less favourably? ____________