Case C-425/24, FIGC and CONI: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2024 – MI v Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI)
Date: 2024-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, administrative sanction, indemnification, jurisdiction, legality, national law, principle of legal certainty, professional sport, right to an effective remedy, right to justice, sports body








C_202405401EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5401


16.9.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2024 – MI v Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI)


(Case C-425/24, FIGC and CONI)

(C/2024/5401)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MI

Defendants: Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI)

Questions referred







1.


Must EU law, and in particular Articles 6 and 19 TEU, interpreted in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and [Article] 6 of the ECHR, be interpreted, in order to ensure observance of the principles of full and effective judicial protection, as precluding a national provision, such as Article 2 of decreto-legge 220/2003 (Decree-Law No 220/2003), converted into legge n. 280/2003 (Law No 280/2003), as interpreted in Italian case-law, which, once the instances of national sports law have been exhausted, limits the jurisdiction of the national court (in this case, the administrative court) as regards sporting sanctions of a disciplinary nature to the award of equivalent compensation only, thus excluding the power to annul those sanctions or the possibility to suspend their effect by way of an interim measure?










2.


Must EU law, and in particular [Articles] 6 and 19 TEU, interpreted in the light of Articles 47, 48 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 7 of the ECHR, be interpreted, in order to ensure observance of the principles of the legality of criminal offences and penalties, of legal certainty and precision of offences, as well as of due process, as precluding a national provision, such as Article 2 of Decree-Law 220/2003, converted into Law No 280/2003 – as interpreted in Italian case-law – which allows sports governing bodies to impose a disciplinary sanction on a sports manager prohibiting him or her from undertaking professional activities on the ground that he or she infringed a provision of rules of the sporting federation (Article 4(1) of the Codice di Giustizia Sportiva FGCI (FGCI Sports Justice Code)), which establishes, by a general clause formulated in vague terms, that all members and sports managers are required to observe, in addition to the by-laws and other regulations of the federation, the principles of honesty, fairness and integrity?










3.


Must EU law, and in particular Articles 101 and 102, 45, 49 and 56 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as Article 2 of Decree-Law No 220/2003, converted into Law No 280/2003, which allows sports bodies to impose a disciplinary sanction prohibiting a sports manager from undertaking professional activities for 24 months at national and supranational level?






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5401/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)