Case C-424/24, FIGC and CONI: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2024 – ZD v Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), Procura federale presso la Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), Collegio di garanzia dello sport presso il Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), Corte federale d’appello presso la Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC)
Date: 2024-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, administrative sanction, indemnification, legality, national law, principle of legal certainty, professional sport, right to an effective remedy, right to justice, sports body








C_202405400EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5400


16.9.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2024 – ZD v Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), Procura federale presso la Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), Collegio di garanzia dello sport presso il Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), Corte federale d’appello presso la Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC)


(Case C-424/24, FIGC and CONI)

(C/2024/5400)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ZD

Defendants: Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), Procura federale presso la Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), Collegio di garanzia dello sport presso il Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), Corte federale d’appello presso la Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC)

Questions referred









1.


Must EU law, and in particular Articles 6 and 19 TEU, in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the ECHR, in relation to the principle of effective judicial protection, be interpreted as precluding:






—


a national provision of a Member State, such as Article 2 of decreto-legge 220/2003 (Decree-Law No 220/2003), converted into legge 280/2003 (Law No 280/2003), as interpreted in Italian case-law, once the instances of national sports justice have been exhausted, from excluding recourse to judicial protection that confers a power on the national court (in this case, the administrative court) to annul disciplinary sanctions in sport and their future effects, and to suspend the effect of those sanctions as an interim measure, thereby limiting the national court to awarding equivalent compensatory protection, where it appears that the disciplinary power has been exercised unlawfully?
















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, so as to ensure observance of the principles of the legality of criminal offences and penalties, of legal certainty and sufficient precision of offences, as well as of due process, as precluding:






—


a national provision, such as Article 2 of Decree-Law No 220/2003, converted into Law No 280/2003 – as interpreted in Italian case-law – which, in accordance with the principle of autonomy of sports law as enshrined in national law and interpreted in Italian case-law, 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 the sporting federation’s rules (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 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 45, 49, 56, 101 and 102 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, from allowing sports bodies to impose a disciplinary sanction on a manager of a sports club operating at international level which prohibits him or her from undertaking professional activities for 24 months at national and supranational level?










ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5400/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)