WRITTEN QUESTION No. 647/96 by Francis DECOURRIERE to the Commission. Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities - Bosman case (C-415/93) - of 15 December 1995
Date: 1996-03-08
Institutions: DECOURRIERE, European Parliament
Subjects: EU national, competition, free movement of persons, naturalisation, professional sport, regulation













EUR-Lex - 91996E0647 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0647

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 647/96 by Francis DECOURRIERE to the Commission. Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities - Bosman case (C-415/93) - of 15 December 1995  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0087 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-0647/96 by Francis Decourrière (PPE) to the Commission (8 March 1996)Subject: Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities - Bosman case (C-415/93) - of 15 December 1995The Bosman case and the consequences of the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Communities concerning sports regulations raise a number of points for sports professionals.Two questions in particular need to be answered:Firstly, should the rules of international sports bodies establishing a nationality for sporting purposes be viewed as an infringement of freedom of movement? In particular, can a citizen of non-EU country who has become a naturalized citizen of a Member State be required to wait three years - a waiting period which is often imposed in practice - before being considered an EU citizen for sporting purposes?Secondly, bearing in mind that the Court of Justice has not delivered a judgment on the application of Articles 85 and 86, can the organization of sport in Europe through a single body for each sport be considered compatible with these provisions?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)As the Honourable Member has pointed out, the Court of Justice's ruling in the Bosman case (C-415/93 of 15 December 1995) did not relate to all aspects of sports regulations. Since the Court did not give any indication as to how the questions raised were to be resolved, the Commission can only set out its own views on the situation.Regarding the waiting period, the Commission would simply note that, as the Court has consistently held, a third-country national who has become a naturalized citizen of a Member State cannot avail himself of the provisions of Community law governing the free movement of persons. It is only if he found himself in what is termed a domestic situation, i.e. if he were a 'new' national of a Member State who had never exercised his right to move freely on the territory of another Member State, that this rule would not apply.As the Honourable Member observes, the Court did not rule, in the Bosman case, on the applicability of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty to the regulations of the sports bodies in question. In its view, this was not necessary in order to resolve the matters at issue.Articles 85 and 86 apply to professional sport only as an economic activity. Sports clubs are undertakings in respect of the economic activities in which they engage and their representative organizations are associations of undertakings within the meaning of those Articles.Restrictive behaviour on the part of professional clubs or their representative organizations in regard to Articles 85 and 86 can be assessed only if the full economic and legal facts are known and if the special characteristics of the sector are taken into consideration.Accordingly, the Commission can answer only in general terms, and subject to a specific examination of each situation, the question as to whether the organization of sport in Europe through a single body for each sport is compatible with the aforementioned provisions of the EC Treaty.In principle, each club must be free to join with others, in accordance with its own interests, to organize its sporting activity. Nevertheless, it is generally acknowledged that the most effective institutional structure for promoting sport is the creation of a single federation in each Member State and a single international federation for each sport. Consequently, it needs to be ascertained in each practical situation the extent to which it is legitimate or practicable for more than one federation to govern autonomously a particular sport or a variant of a particular sport with a view to improving its quality for the benefit of clubs, players and spectators. It may be that problems will arise in connection with the rules of competition set out in the Treaty where the stronger federation at national or international level hampers the setting-up of another federation. The extent to which the rules of competition are to apply in such situations has still to be determined in the proper context of each practical situation.