WRITTEN QUESTION P-1123/04 by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Recourse to civil courts.
Date: 2004-04-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, court of arbitration, free competition, interpretation of the law, job access, legal action, professional sport, sports body

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/571

(2004/C 88 E/0582)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1123/04

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Recourse to civil courts

The Fédération Internationale de Football Association’s (FIFA) current Statutes (Regulations Governing the
football clubs
Application of
throughout the EU from having recourse to normal legal channels. Article 61 of FIFA’s Statutes states that:

the Congress) prevent professional

the Statutes; Standing Orders of

Recourse to ordinary courts of
regulations.

law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the FIFA

To ensure the foregoing, the Associations shall insert a clause in their statutes stipulating that their
clubs and members are prohibited from taking a dispute to ordinary courts of law and are required to
submit any disagreement to the jurisdiction of the Association, the appropriate Confederation or FIFA.

According to the Statutes, should the clubs have a dispute with FIFA or other stakeholders involved in
football, they must address their complaint to a special Court of Arbitration for Sports in Switzerland.
Article 59 of FIFA’s Statutes states:

FIFA shall create an option for recourse to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, an independent
arbitration tribunal with headquarters in Lausanne (Switzerland), to resolve any disputes between FIFA,
the Confederations, Members, Leagues, Cubs, Players, Officials and licensed match agents and players’
agents.

Could the Commission clarify whether FIFA’s Articles 59 and 61 are compatible with EU internal market
principles and with EU law (for example, Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community)?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission would point out first of all that the considerations below concerning Articles 59 and 61
of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association’s (FIFA) Statutes apply also to the Statutes of the
Union des Associations européennes de Football (UEFA), which contain similar provisions and which, in
Article 5, limit membership to ‘national football associations situated in the continent of Europe’.

In the Commission’s opinion, a rule such as that in Articles 59 and 61 of the FIFA Statutes which prohibits
recourse to national courts and imposes compulsory arbitration prima facie infringes the principle of
freedom of access to employment. This principle constitutes a fundamental right which, as the Court of
Justice has acknowledged (1), the EC Treaty confers individually on each worker in the Community. The
existence of a right of appeal to the courts from a decision of a national authority denying an individual
is to be effectively protected. This
free access to employment is essential
requirement constitutes a general principle of Community law which stems from the Member States’
common constitutional traditions and is enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on
Human Rights (see also Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).

if this fundamental right

As regards the possible infringement of Articles 81 and 82, a rule such as the one in question is prima
facie contrary to the EC Treaty inasmuch as the denial of access to the courts may facilitate anticompetitive
agreements or conduct.

When it examines cases brought before it, the Commission accordingly takes care to ensure that these
principles of freedom of access to employment and freedom of competition are complied with. For
example, as a result of its action, Article 42 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
henceforth makes it possible to derogate from Articles 59 and 61 of the FIFA Statutes by permitting
recourse to the courts.

C 88 E/572

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

The Commission would also draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that decisions of the
Switzerland-based Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be challenged before the ordinary courts
under certain conditions and on certain (limited) grounds.

(1) Case C-222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097.

(2004/C 88 E/0583)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1124/04

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Tax concessions for stud farms

(6 April 2004)

Will the Commission please state its view concerning the practice whereby Ireland grants tax exemption to
stud farms in respect of ‘nomination fees’ payable when a stallion impregnates a mare?

Is this practice not an illegitimate form of state aid to stud farms in Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission has received a formal complaint about the practice of Ireland granting tax exemption to
stud farms. As the Commission has concerns about the compatibility with State aid rules, this practice is
being examined under Article 88 of the EC Treaty (State aid No NN 32/04).

(2004/C 88 E/0584)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1126/04

by Véronique De Keyser (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: Use of structural funds

It would appear that some of the structural funds earmarked for Latvia are to go towards restoring castles
and other property being reacquired by former aristocrats who are still in exile or who have recently
returned to the country. These funds are therefore being used for the restoration of private property
reacquired at reduced prices and not for the restoration of heritage sites open to the public. Some
repossessions even involve the expropriation of schools. I am stunned at such a use of structural funds and
would like to verify the accuracy of this information, which appeared in a television programme called
‘Des racines et des hommes’ (‘Roots and men’), broadcast by France 3 on 30 March 2004.

Is the use of structural funds in the Baltic States monitored in detail, and is there any information that
could be published with which to confirm or deny these claims?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Assistance from the European Union to Latvia under the Structural Funds will be delivered under the
Objective 1 Single Programming Document, negotiated with the Latvian authorities which has yet to be
formally approved in advance of accession on 1 May (1).