WRITTEN QUESTION E-2609/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. UEFA ‐ EURO 2000: punishment of professional Portuguese footballers in violation of fundamental legal guarantees.
Date: 2000-08-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU competence, exclusion from public-sector employment, infringement of EU law, professional sport

C 103 E/196

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

As laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 of 20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 136/
1.
66/EEC on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats (1), the Commission
is committed to presenting a reform proposal in 2000 with a view to its application in the 2001/02
marketing year.

2.

The Commission will inform and consult Parliament at the appropriate time.

3.

Yes.

(1) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998.

(2001/C 103 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2609/00

by JosØ Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: UEFA (cid:129) EURO 2000: punishment of professional Portuguese footballers in violation of funda-

mental 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(cid:146) 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) (cid:145)is founded on ((cid:133)) respect for human rights ((cid:133)) and the
rule of law(cid:146). 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).

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/197

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-(cid:224)-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.

judgments,

The Commission would like to point out that in 1974 the Court of Justice established the principle that
(cid:145)the practice of sport is subject to Community law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity(cid:146) (1).
including the Bosman judgment (2), to which the Honourable Member refers, have
Several
subsequently confirmed this. The Commission has always sought to enforce this principle, and has
reiterated it in the (cid:145)Helsinki Report on Sport(cid:146) of 5 December 2000 (3). In this report the Commission, in
Justice case law, makes a distinction between practices which come under the
line with Court of
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)

(cid:145)Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and
maintaining the social
(Helsinki Report on Sport),
COM(1999) 644 final.

function of sport within the Community framework(cid:146)

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

(2001/C 103 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2612/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Freedom of movement for minors who are refused passports

Is it compatible with the Council of Europe(cid:146)s Convention on human rights for a Member State to deny a
citizen (minor) the right to hold a passport, even a temporary one, if one parent or guardian withholds
approval? Free movement of persons within the EU should surely also apply to EU citizens who are
minors, but it thus does not appear to apply if one parent or guardian stands in the way. What is the
Commission(cid:146)s view of this infringement of a basic principle of the Treaty?