THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE ' .
9 AS REGARDS FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY , ARTICLE 59 PROVIDES THAT THE RESTRICTIONS EXISTING IN THIS FIELD SHALL BE ABOLISHED IN RESPECT OF NATIONALS OF MEMBER STATES WHO ARE ESTABLISHED IN A STATE OF THE COMMUNITY OTHER THAN THAT OF THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SERVICES ARE INTENDED .
10 UNDER THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 60 THE PERSON PROVIDING A SERVICE MAY , IN ORDER TO DO SO , TEMPORARILY PURSUE HIS ACTIVITY IN THE STATE WHERE THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED , UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS ARE IMPOSED BY THAT STATE ON ITS OWN NATIONALS .
11 THE RESULT OF THE FOREGOING IS THAT ANY NATIONAL PROVISION WHICH LIMITS AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY ARTICLES 48 TO 51 OR 59 TO 66 OF THE TREATY TO THE NATIONALS OF ONE MEMBER STATE ALONE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMUNITY RULE .
12 ( 2 ) HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY , THE PRACTICE OF SPORT IS SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY LAW ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT CONSTITUTES AN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE TREATY .
THIS APPLIES TO THE ACTIVITIES OF PROFESSIONAL OR SEMI-PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYERS , WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT OR REMUNERATED SERVICE .
13 WHERE SUCH PLAYERS ARE NATIONALS OF A MEMBER STATE THEY BENEFIT IN ALL THE OTHER MEMBER STATES FROM THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW CONCERNING FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF PERSONS AND OF PROVISION OF SERVICES .
14 HOWEVER , THOSE PROVISIONS DO NOT PREVENT THE ADOPTION OF RULES OR OF A PRACTICE 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 , SUCH AS , FOR EXAMPLE , MATCHES BETWEEN NATIONAL TEAMS FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES .
15 THIS RESTRICTION ON THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION MUST HOWEVER REMAIN LIMITED TO ITS PROPER OBJECTIVE .
16 HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE , IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY SUBMITTED TO ITS JUDGMENT .
17 ( 3 ) AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY RULED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 12 DECEMBER 1974 IN WALRAVE V UNION CYCLISTE INTERNATIONALE ( CASE 36/74 ( 1974 ) ECR 1405 ), THE PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONALITY DOES NOT ONLY APPLY TO THE ACTION OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES BUT EXTENDS LIKEWISE TO RULES OF ANY OTHER NATURE AIMED AT COLLECTIVELY REGULATING GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT AND SERVICES .
18 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 7 , 48 AND 59 OF THE TREATY , WHICH ARE MANDATORY IN NATURE , MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE NATIONAL COURT IN JUDGING THE VALIDITY OR THE EFFECTS OF A PROVISION INSERTED IN THE RULES OF A SPORTING ORGANIZATION .
19 THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE COURT MUST THEREFORE BE THAT RULES