WRITTEN QUESTION No. 515/96 by Charles GOERENS to the Commission. Interpretation of Article 48 of the Treaty from the point of view of the nationality clauses
Date: 1996-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, GOERENS
Subjects: EU law - national law, EU national, application of EU law, free movement of persons, nationality, naturalisation, professional sport, third country













EUR-Lex - 91996E0515 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0515

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 515/96 by Charles GOERENS to the Commission. Interpretation of Article 48 of the Treaty from the point of view of the nationality clauses  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0061 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0515/96 by Charles Goerens (ELDR) to the Commission (11 March 1996)Subject: Interpretation of Article 48 of the Treaty from the point of view of the nationality clausesThe Bosman case and the Court's judgment in this case have focused attention on restrictive practices in sport. There are many other problems in this area, including the use of recently naturalized professional players, which is sometimes subject to restrictions in the case of competitions between clubs or matches between national teams.Are the limitations placed by some sports associations on the number of naturalized professional players in competition matches between clubs compatible with the Treaty?Are these practices allowed in the case of competitions between national teams?What is the position with regard to the rules preventing a player who has changed nationality or acquired a new nationality from representing his new country of adoption in official competitions before a certain period has elapsed (waiting period)? What, finally, is the position with regard to the rules forbidding a sportsman who has officially represented his country of origin in international championships, then changed nationality or acquired a new nationality, to represent his country of adoption in similar events?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (29 March 1996)As the Honourable Member rightly pointed out, the Court's judgment in the Bosman case on 15 December 1995 did not take account of some of the points referred to in this parliamentary question. In the absence of any guidelines from the Court, the Commission can give only a provisional reply.On the question of restrictions on the number of naturalised players in competitions between clubs, the Commission is unaware of any rules which would have the effect referred to by the Honourable Member. Furthermore, the Commission cannot see how a federation in Member State A could treat players from Member State B who are nationals of that country from birth differently from those who have acquired nationality at a later date. According to the decisions of the Court ((Auer 1 Case, ECR, 1979, p. 437. )), there is no provision of the EC Treaty which, within the field of application of the Treaty, makes it possible to treat nationals of a Member State differently according to the time at which or the manner in which they acquired the nationality of that State, as long as, at the time at which they rely on the benefit of the provisions of Community law, they possess the nationality of one of the Member States and that, in addition, the other conditions for application of the rule on which they rely are fulfilled. It follows that a player who has had the nationality of a third country and who acquires, by naturalisation, the nationality of the Member State in which he exercises his professional activity is in the same situation as a national of that Member State who has never exercised his right to free movement within the territory of another Member State, and the issue would therefore be of 'domestic' interest only.As regards restrictions on the number of naturalised players in matches between national teams, in its judgment in the Bosman case the Court pointed out that Article 48 of the EC Treaty does not preclude rules or practices excluding foreign players from participation in certain matches for reasons which are not of an economic nature, which relate to the particular nature and context of such matches and are thus of sporting interest only, as in the case of matches between national teams from different countries.The waiting period has already been ruled contrary to the national law concerned, and to Community law, by a number of national courts, including the French Council of State, in the case of other sports.