A judgment of the highest European court could have far -reaching consequences for the world of sports law. In front of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on Friday (10 a.m.) it will be about whether the International Sports Court CAS may have the last word.
The most important arbitral tribunal in international sports decides, for example, about doping locks by athletes and participation conditions for competitions.
The ECJ decision is eagerly awaited by experts. The most important questions about the case at a glance:
What is the Court of Justice of the European Union?
Before the highest European court, it is about whether an arbitration from the International Sports Court CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) is binding or must be verifiable for violations of EU law by courts from the member states.
So far, the CAS, which is located in Lausanne in Switzerland and thus outside the EU, has only been checking the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. This also only checks whether there were procedural errors in front of the sports court.
The judges in Luxembourg now judge whether this is sufficient under EU law or that the national courts can also check CAS decisions in the EU.
Why is the case so important for the sports world?
With their judgment, the Luxembourg judges could break up an essential system in sports law. The basic idea behind an institution such as the sports arbitration courtyard is that the privately defined regulations in sport are interpreted worldwide – and not differently in every country depending on the court decisions there.
Fairness in the competition is to be ensured across national borders. National courts can therefore only check the judgments of the CAS very limited. Depending on the decision of the ECJ, that could change.
If the arbitration sayings were no longer binding, that would be a “sensation”, says sports law expert Jan F. Orth from the University of Cologne. “We need something like the International Sports Arbitration Court because it quickly decides and usually quickly decides,” said Orth.
At the same time, the CAS is criticized. He is accused of preferring sports associations in his decisions and being very expensive for the athletes.
What is the specific case about?
In the specific case, the Belgian Football Association RFC Seraing has been fighting for more than ten years with FIFA on the ban on the so-called third-party ownership (Third-Party Ownership, TPO for short). This ban is defined in the regulations of the FIFA World Federation Association, the European Association UEFA and the national associations.
FIFA had therefore prohibited the club that external investors acquire rights to players – and in 2015 occupied it with a transfer block and fine. The case landed in front of the CAS that decided in the sense of FIFA. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court also had nothing to complain about. Seraing then questioned the independence of the CAS because it is financed by international associations. The association pulled in front of the courts in Belgium.
Can it be estimated how the verdict could be?
The decision of the court only experiences the public with the announcement this Friday. However, it does not look particularly good for the CAS: In her final applications, the responsible general lawyer took the view that national courts in the EU must be able to comprehensive the arbitration sayings.
She argued that the responsibility of CAS in football was forced to the sports actors. “A free will of the parties to bring a dispute in front of the CAS is not easily recognizable,” it said in their explanations.
This is a crucial difference to trading arbitration, in which parties also determine who should decide on disputes between them. The assessment of general attorney is not binding, but the court often follows her.
What are the expectations of the judgment?
“In any case, the sports world has to move,” says sports lawyer Anne Jakob, who is also President of the International Sports Lawyers Association Isla. In their view, regulations of the sports associations must be revised in order to establish the same requirements between athletes as well as clubs and the associations.
Depending on the outcome, the ECJ could put “considerable pressure” on the sports associations with the decision.