WRITTEN QUESTION E-2609/00

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: UEFA EURO 2000: punishment of professional Portuguese footballers in violation of fundamental legal guarantees

A number of incidents occurred at the end of the match between Portugal and France in the semi-finals of EURO 2000. A controversial handball, which very few people saw (the referee himself did not see it) and a questionable penalty decision led to protests from the Portuguese side which, while regrettable, were understandable given the context and the stage in the game. UEFA applied particularly severe penalties and three Portuguese international players, Abel Xavier, Nuno Gomes and Paulo Bento, were banned from taking part in any international competition for nine, eight and six months respectively. That measure also affects the players' clubs, which will be unable to use these players in international competitions for reasons which are unconnected with the clubs concerned. UEFA did not even hear the players before punishing them so harshly. Neither did it hear the clubs, which are also affected by the decision.

The European Union (Article 6 of the EU Treaty) is founded on (mldr) respect for human rights (mldr) and the rule of law. It refers to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, specifically the guarantees laid down in Articles 6 and 7 thereof. A fundamental right of citizens, and a guiding principle of the rule of law, is the right guaranteeing that anyone accused of an offence cannot be punished without a prior hearing.

This was not the cause with regard to the above players. The fact that the appeal which they lodged is now underway does not annul the breach of that fundamental guarantee already committed by UEFA. In line with general legal principles, the failure to hear them should render the entire process null and void.

Consideration is currently being given to improving the treatment of sport in the Treaties, paying due attention to its specific characteristics. This cannot be achieved while the individual guarantees of European citizens are being harmed. Instead, UEFA should show greater respect for fundamental rights at a time when it is advocating a corresponding revision of the Treaties.

At the same time, the Bosman judgment and its consequences mean that the single market now includes the world of professional football and relations among clubs. In a situation of competition in a single market, it is unacceptable that some European football clubs should be harmed and others should benefit from illegal disciplinary decisions, taken in breach of basic legal guarantees and based on incidents entirely unconnected with the clubs (which are indirectly being punished).

Is the Commission aware of these facts with respect to UEFA? Has it sought clarification from UEFA with regard to the procedure followed with a view to verifying whether or not the fundamental legal guarantees to which all European citizens, including professional football players and, at a different level, their respective clubs, are entitled, have been ignored? If it is established that the right to a prior hearing has been violated, what action will the Commission take on this matter, including vis-à-vis UEFA?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2000)

The Honourable Member has asked whether the Commission can intervene following incidents during the EURO 2000 match between France and Portugal which led UEFA to impose suspensions on Portuguese players.

The Commission would like to point out that in 1974 the Court of Justice established the principle that the practice of sport is subject to Community law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity(1). Several judgments, including the Bosman judgment(2), to which the Honourable Member refers, have subsequently confirmed this. The Commission has always sought to enforce this principle, and has reiterated it in the Helsinki Report on Sport of 5 December 2000(3). In this report the Commission, in line with Court of Justice case law, makes a distinction between practices which come under the competition rules, those which are, in principle, prohibited by the competition rules, and those likely to be exempted from the competition rules. It thus feels that the rules of the game are inherent to sport, and their aim is not to distort competition.

In the case raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that the incidents which occurred and the penalties imposed come under the rules of the game, involving assessment by the arbitration authorities and application of the disciplinary powers which take effect when these rules are violated. The Commission therefore cannot intervene.

However, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with Court of Justice case law, the principles of legal certainty, the right of defence and the right of appeal(4) are among the general principles of Community law. Any Community nationals who feel that their rights under Community law, e.g. the right to freedom of movement, have been infringed can therefore assert these rights before a national court.

(1) See judgment of 12 December 1974, Walrave (36/74, ECR 1405).

(2) See judgment of 15 December 1995, Bosman (C-415/93, ECR 1995, I-4921).

(3) Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework (Helsinki Report on Sport), COM(1999) 644 final.

(4) See, for example, judgment of 15 October 1987, Unectef v. Heylens and others (222/86 ECR 4097).