Igor Simutenkov v Ministerio de Educación y Cultura and Real Federación Española de Fútbol.
Date: 2005-04-12
20. It must be pointed out that, as this question concerning the effect of the provisions of the Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement within the legal systems of the parties to that Agreement (‘the parties’) has not been resolved therein, it is for the Court to resolve that question in the same way as any other question of interpretation concerning the application of agreements within the Community (judgment in Case C-149/96 Portugal  v Council  [1999] ECR I‑8395, paragraph 34).
21. In this regard, according to well-established case-law, a provision in an agreement concluded by the Communities with a non-member country must be regarded as being directly applicable when, regard being had to its wording and to the purpose and nature of the agreement, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure (judgments in Case C-63/99 Gloszczuk  [2001] ECR I-6369, paragraph 30, and in Case C-171/01 Wählergruppe Gemeinsam  [2003] ECR I-4301, paragraph 54).
23. Such a rule of equal treatment lays down a precise obligation as to results and, by its nature, can be relied on by an individual before a national court as a basis for requesting that court to disapply discriminatory provisions without any further implementing measures being required to that end (judgments in Case C-162/00 Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer  [2002] ECR I-1049, paragraph 22, and in Wählergruppe Gemeinsam , cited above, paragraph 58).
24. That interpretation cannot be brought into question by the words ‘[s]ubject to the laws, conditions and procedures applicable in each Member State’, which feature at the beginning of Article 23(1) of the Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement, or by Article 48 of that Agreement.  Those provisions cannot be construed as allowing the Member States to subject application of the principle of non-discrimination set out in Article 23(1) of that agreement to discretionary limitations, which would have the effect of rendering that provision meaningless and thus depriving it of any practical effect ( Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer , cited above, paragraphs 23 and 24, and Case C-438/00 Deutscher Handballbund  [2003] ECR I‑4135, paragraph 29).
25. Nor does Article 27 of the Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement preclude Article 23(1) thereof from having direct effect.  The fact that Article 27 provides that Article 23 is to be implemented on the basis of recommendations by the Cooperation Council does not make the applicability of Article 23, in its implementation or effects, subject to the adoption of any subsequent measure.  The role which Article 27 confers on that council is to facilitate compliance with the prohibition of discrimination but cannot be regarded as limiting the immediate application of that prohibition (see, in that regard, Case C-18/90 Kziber  [1991] ECR I-199, paragraph 19, and Case C-262/96 Sürül  [1999] ECR I-2685, paragraph 66).
28. The fact that the Agreement is thus limited to establishing a partnership between the parties, without providing for an association or future accession of the Russian Federation to the Communities, is not such as to prevent certain of its provisions from having direct effect.  It is clear from the Court’s case-law that when an agreement establishes cooperation between the parties, some of the provisions of that agreement may, under the conditions set out in paragraph 21 of the present judgment, directly govern the legal position of individuals ( Kziber , cited above, paragraph 21, Case C-113/97 Babahenini  [1998] ECR I-183, paragraph 17, and Case C-162/96 Racke  [1998] ECR I-3655, paragraphs 34 to 36).
32. The Court ruled, inter alia, that a rule which limits the number of professional players, nationals of the non-member country in question, who might be fielded in national competitions did relate to working conditions within the meaning of the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Communities-Slovakia Association Agreement inasmuch as it directly affected participation in league and cup matches of a Slovak professional player who was already lawfully employed in the host Member State ( Deutscher Handballbund , cited above, paragraphs 44 to 46).
33. The Court also ruled that the interpretation of Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(2) EC) which it handed down in its judgment in Case C-415/93 Bosman  [1995] ECR I-4921 to the effect that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality applies to rules laid down by sporting associations which determine the conditions under which professional sportsmen can engage in gainful employment and precludes a limitation, based on nationality, on the number of players who may be fielded at the same time, could be transposed to the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Communities-Slovakia Association Agreement ( Deutscher Handballbund , paragraphs 31 to 37 and 48 to 51).
37. Furthermore, in the judgments in Bosman  and Deutscher Handballbund , the Court held that a rule such as that in issue in the main proceedings related to working conditions ( Deutscher Handballbund , paragraphs 44 to 46).  The fact that Article 23(1) of the Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement applies only in regard to working conditions, remuneration or dismissal, and thus does not extend to rules concerning access to employment, is accordingly irrelevant.
38. In addition, the limitation based on nationality does not relate to specific matches between teams representing their respective countries but applies to official matches between clubs and thus to the essence of the activity performed by professional players.  As the Court has also ruled, such a limitation cannot be justified on sporting grounds ( Bosman , paragraphs 128 to 137; Deutscher Handballbund , paragraphs 54 to 56).