Olympique Lyonnais SASP v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle UFC.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62008CJ0325
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2010:143
• Docket Number: C-325/08
• Date: 16 March 2010
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling

Case C-325/08

Olympique Lyonnais SASP

v

Olivier Bernard

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France))

(Article 39 EC – Freedom of movement for workers – Restriction – Professional football players – Obligation to sign the first professional contract with the club which provided the training – Player ordered to pay damages for infringement of that obligation – Justification – Objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young professional players)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope

(Art. 45 TFEU)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers

(Art. 45 TFEU)

1. Article 45 TFEU extends not only to the actions of public authorities but also to rules of any other nature aimed at regulating gainful employment in a collective manner. A professional football charter of the national football federation falls within the scope of that article if the charter has the status of a national collective agreement.

(see paras 30, 32)

2. Article 45 TFEU does not preclude a scheme which, in order to attain the objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players, guarantees compensation to the club which provided the training if, at the end of his training period, a young player signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State, provided that the scheme is suitable to ensure the attainment of that objective and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it.

It is true that such a scheme is a restriction of freedom of movement for workers guaranteed within the European Union by Article 45 TFEU, since it is likely to discourage players from exercising their right of free movement and makes the exercise of that right less attractive, even though it does not formally prevent the player from signing a professional contract with a club in another Member State. However, such a scheme can, in principle, be justified by the objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players, the prospect of receiving training fees being likely to encourage football clubs to seek new talent and train young players. Moreover, the costs generated by training young players are, in general, only partly compensated for by the benefits which the club providing the training can derive from those players during their training period. In those circumstances, the clubs that provided the training could be discouraged from investing in the training of young players if they could not obtain reimbursement of the amounts spent for that purpose when, at the end of his training, a player enters into a professional contract with another club. In particular, that would be the case with small clubs providing training, whose investments at local level in the recruitment and training of young players are of considerable importance for the social and educational function of sport.

However, such a scheme must be actually capable of attaining that objective and be proportionate to it, taking due account of the costs borne by the clubs in training both future professional players and those who will never play professionally. A scheme under which a ‘joueur espoir’ who signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State at the end of his training period is liable to pay damages calculated in a way that is unrelated to the actual costs of the training is not necessary to ensure the attainment of that objective.

(see paras 35-37, 41, 43-45, 49-50, operative part)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

16 March 2010 (*)

(Article 39 EC – Freedom of movement for workers – Restriction – Professional football players – Obligation to sign the first professional contract with the club which provided the training – Player ordered to pay damages for infringement of that obligation – Justification – Objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young professional players)

In Case C‑325/08,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour de cassation (France), made by decision of 9 July 2008, received at the Court on 17 July 2008, in the proceedings

Olympique Lyonnais SASP

v

Olivier Bernard,

Newcastle United FC,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of V. Skouris, President, K. Lenaerts and P. Lindh, Presidents of Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, A. Borg Barthet and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: E. Sharpston,

Registrar: M.-A. Gaudissart, Head of unit,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 5 May 2009,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Olympique Lyonnais SASP, by J.-J. Gatineau, avocat,

– Newcastle United FC, by SCP Celice-Blancpain-Soltner, avocats,

– the French Government, by G. de Bergues and A. Czubinski, acting as Agents,

– the Italian Government, by I. Bruni, acting as Agent, and D. Del Gaizo, avvocato dello Stato,

– the Netherlands Government, by C.M. Wissels and M. de Grave, acting as Agents,

– the United Kingdom Government, by S. Ossowski, acting as Agent, and D.J. Rhee, Barrister,

– the Commission of the European Communities, by M. Van Hoof and G. Rozet, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 July 2009,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns Article 39 EC.

2 The reference has been made in the course of proceedings brought by Olympique Lyonnais SASP (‘Olympique Lyonnais’) against Mr Bernard, a professional football player, and Newcastle United FC, a club incorporated under English law, concerning the payment of damages for unilateral breach of his obligations under Article 23 of the Charte du football professionnel (Professional Football Charter) for the 1997 – 1998 season of the Fédération française de football (‘the Charter’).

Legal context

National law

3 At the material time in the main proceedings, employment of football players was regulated in France by the Charter, which had the status of a collective agreement. Title III, Chapter IV, of the Charter concerned the category known as ‘joueurs espoir’, namely players between the ages of 16 and 22 employed as trainees by a professional club under a fixed-term contract.

4 At the end of his training with a club, the Charter obliged a ‘joueur espoir’ to sign his...