23130
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-23130,single-format-standard,stockholm-core-2.2.8,select-child-theme-ver-1.1,select-theme-ver-8.7,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded, vertical_menu_hidden,,qode_footer_adv_responsiveness,qode_footer_adv_responsiveness_1024,qode_footer_adv_responsiveness_one_column,qode_menu_,qode-mobile-logo-set,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-7.7.2,vc_responsive

Lazio Regional Administrative Court Reference to the European Court of Justice

The case C/2024/5401, referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, raises significant legal questions about the relationship between national sports law and EU law.

Specifically, it addresses the compatibility of the Italian sports’ legal framework with fundamental EU principles, including effective judicial protection; the legality of sanctions; and fundamental freedoms within the EU internal market.

Key Issues:

  1. Limited Jurisdiction and Effective Judicial Protection

The first question concerns whether the Italian legal framework (Decree-Law No 220/2003 and Law No 280/2003) is compatible with EU law in limiting the jurisdiction of administrative courts to awarding monetary compensation for disciplinary sanctions in sports and excluding their annulment or suspension.

This restriction could conflict with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (the Charter) and Articles 6 and 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TEU), which ensure the right to full and effective judicial protection.

The CJEU will need to assess whether this limitation violates fundamental principles of EU law, especially in balancing sports autonomy and fundamental rights.

  1. Legality and Precision of Disciplinary Rules in Sports

The second question raises the issue of legal certainty regarding sports disciplinary rules. The provisions of the FIGC (Italian Football Federation) Sports Justice Code require adherence to general legal principles, such as honesty, fairness, and integrity, which are expressed in broad and indeterminate terms.

This vagueness could violate the principles of legality and precision in sanctions, as enshrined in Articles 47, 48, and 49 of the Charter, as well as Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The CJEU will need to determine whether these provisions comply with the EU requirements for clarity and foreseeability in disciplinary measures.

  1. Compatibility with Fundamental Freedoms of the Internal Market

The third question examines whether a disciplinary sanction that prohibits a sports manager from professional activities at both national and international levels is compatible with fundamental freedoms of the internal market, namely, freedom of movement, establishment, and provision of services under Articles 45, 49, and 56 of TFEU. Such a restriction could constitute an unjustified limitation, particularly if it is disproportionate or unnecessary to achieve legitimate public interest objectives in the sports sector.

Comments:

The case highlights the tension between the principle of autonomy in sports governance and the obligation of Member States to comply with the fundamental principles of EU law.

It will be interesting to see how the CJEU balances the autonomy of sports federations with the need to ensure respect for fundamental rights and EU freedoms, especially given the growing recognition of sports as a sector increasingly subject to EU legal regulation.

The CJEU decision will have significant implications, not only for the Italian sports legal system but also for other national frameworks where sports law intersects with EU law.

For further information, please email the Head of our Italian Law Practice, Sara Botti, at ‘botti@valloni.ch’.