Case C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais SASP v. Olivier Bernard and Newcastle United UFC, judgment of the court of justice (Grand Chamber) of 16 March 2010, not yet reported

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1187-1197

  Lindholm, Johan ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957252591     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Compare the judgment, paras. 7-9, Opinion of A.G. Sharpston in the present case, paras. 2-3, 18-24 and Case C-415/93, Bosman, [1995] ECR I-4921, paras. 28-35, 105.
2. Case C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina, [2006] ECR I-6991, commented in e.g.
3. Parrish and Miettinen, The Sporting Exception in European Union Law (T.M.C. Asser, 2008).
4. Weatherill, "Anti-doping Revisited - The Demise of the Rule of 'Purely Sporting Interest'", (2006) ECLR, 645-657.
5. Szyszczak, "Competition and Sport", 32 EL Rev. (2007), 95-110.
6. My translation of "joueur espoir".
7. Chartre du football professionnel (henceforth "the Charter" ), Art. 23.
8. Judgment, paras. 3-4, 7-9.
9. Code du Travail, Art. L. 122-3-8; The judgment, paras. 3-6.
10. Judgment, para 10. The Charter did not specify how damages should be calculated.
11. Judgment, paras. 11-16; Opinion of A.G. Sharpston in the present case, paras. 29-35.
12. Opinion of A.G. Sharpston in the present case, paras. 35-38.
13. Judgment, para 50.
14. A.G. Sharpston was aware of the Court's prior position on this matter and referred to it. She concluded, on the basis of Bosman, that rules ensuring a team repayment of training fees "are therefore perhaps not decisive in encouraging clubs to recruit and train young players [but] [n]one the less... ensure that clubs are not discouraged from recruitment and training...". Opinion of A.G. Sharpston in the present case, para 46, citing Bosman, para 109.
15. Judgment, para 45.
16. Case 36/74, Walrave, [1974] ECR 1403, para 8; Case 13/76, Donà, [1976] ECR 1333, para 14.
17. Judgment, paras. 27-37; cf. Opinion of A.G. Sharpston in the present case, para 30.
18. Judgment, para 39. The Court of Justice has recognized many such justification.
19. see Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 492-497.
20. See also Chalmers et al., European Union Law (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 834.
21. Judgment, para 40.
22. Joined Cases C-51/96 & C-191/97, Deliège, [2000] ECR I-2549, para 64.
23. Case C-176/96, Lehtonen, [2000] ECR I-2681, paras. 56-58.
24. The Court cites the Opinion of A.G. Sharpston in the present case, paras. 30, 47, but she actually uses the social and educational function of sport primarily to support that the recruitment and training of youth is a legitimate objective. The portion of the opinion cited by the Court, paras. 45-48, concerns why training and education of youth players is a legitimate aim and is quite clearly separated from the discussion regarding the proportionality of the measures, paras. 49-57.
25. See on this matter also the discussion further infra.
26. Opinion of A.G. Sharpston in the present case, para 47.
27. Judgment, paras. 42-45.
28. See, e.g. Gianni Infantino, "Meca-Medina: A step bckwards for the European Sports Model and the specificity of sport?", (2006) Sports Law Administration and Practice, 1.
29. See also McCutcheon, "Free movement in European sport", 2 European Sport Management Quarterly (2002), 308-320, at 310.
30. Helgreen, European Sports Law (Thompson, 2004), p. 51.
31. Parrish, "Football's place in the Single European Market", 3 Soccer and Society (2002), 1-21, at 6.
32. Weatherhill, "Resisting the pressures of 'Americanization': The influence of European Community law on the 'European Sport Model'", 8 Williamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution (2000), 37-76, at 45-46.
33. White Paper on Sport, COM(2007)391 final, 14.
34. Judgment, para 40.
35. Opinion of A.G. Sharpston in the present case, paras. 59-61.
36. FIFA, Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, Art. 20 and Annex 4. See also Opinion of A.G. Sharpston in the present case, paras. 10-14.
37. Opinion of A.G. Sharpston in the present case, para 56.
38. Judgment, para 43.