Christelle Deliège v Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL, Ligue belge de judo ASBL, Union européenne de judo (C-51/96) and François Pacquée (C-191/97).

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Writing for the Court: Ragnemalm
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:1999:147
• Docket Number: C-191/97,C-51/96
• Date: 18 March 1999
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling

Important legal notice

|

61996C0051

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Cosmas delivered on 18 March 1999. - Christelle Deliège v Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL, Ligue belge de judo ASBL, Union européenne de judo (C-51/96) and François Pacquée (C-191/97). - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de première instance de Namur - Belgium. - Freedom to provide services - Competition rules applicable to undertakings - Judokas - Sports rules providing for national quotas and national federations' selection procedures for participation in international tournaments. - Joined cases C-51/96 and C-191/97.

European Court reports 2000 Page I-02549

Opinion of the Advocate-General

I - Introduction

1 In this case, the Court has been asked to answer two questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunal de Première Instance (Court of First Instance), Namur (Belgium). The Court thus has the opportunity to supplement its case-law concerning the way in which sport falls within the scope of, and is linked to, Community law. More specifically, the present case raises the question whether the fundamental principles of primary Community law relating to freedom of movement for persons and the protection of fair competition (Articles 48 and 59 of the EC Treaty, now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 49 EC, and Articles 60, 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, now Articles 50 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC; I shall henceforth refer to the numbering used prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam) apply within the context of the relationship between sportsmen and the federations to which they belong. The dispute under consideration differs from Bosman in two major respects: first, it relates to an individual rather than a team sport (judo); and second, the sport in question is a so-called amateur sport, that is to say one whose practitioners do not automatically have professional status.

II - Facts

2 Ms Deliège, a Belgian national and the applicant in the main proceedings, is a judoka in Belgium. She has achieved considerable success in that sport. (1) According to her, however, she has fallen into disfavour with the sports federations in her country. (2) She claims that they repeatedly prevented her from taking part in tournaments in order to damage her career and to make it easier for rival athletes to join the national team due to participate in the Atlanta Olympic Games. The defendant federations contend that Ms Deliège was excluded from the international tournaments on strictly sport-related and disciplinary grounds. It appears, first, that the applicant's ability and performance do not match those of the sportswomen chosen to take part in international tournaments and second, that she has a difficult character and is inclined to commit disciplinary offences.

3 That feud between Ms Deliège and the Belgian sports authorities formed the backdrop to a number of incidents which led to the dispute currently pending before the national court. Ms Deliège wished to take part in the 1995 European judo championships, and the international judo tournaments held in Basle on 2 and 3 December 1995, Paris on 10 and 11 February 1996 and Leonding on 16, 17 and 18 February 1996. It was particularly important for her to take part in those tournaments because her place in the Belgian Olympic team depended largely on how well she performed in them.

4 At this point, it is appropriate to examine the criteria and mechanism for selecting judokas for the Atlanta Olympic Games. The International Judo Federation (`the IJF') had decided that those qualifying for those games would be the first eight in each category from the most recent world championships and a number of judokas for each continent (for Europe, nine men and five women in each of the seven categories (3)). In order to implement the IJF's decisions - that is to say, to select the European sportsmen and sportswomen who would be sent to Atlanta - the European Judo Union (`the EJU') met in Nicosia, where it took the following decisions: the European selection list for the Olympic Games would be drawn up on the basis of the results achieved at the major European tournaments (`Category A' tournaments) and in the European championships. The right to enter judokas for those tournaments (including those in Basle, Paris and Leonding) was held exclusively by the national federations, each of which was allowed to put forward only seven men and seven women in total, including no more than one or two male or female judokas per category. Qualification for the selection list was based on the best results achieved by each sportsman or sportswoman at three Category A tournaments and his or her results at the European championships. Every athlete, male or female, therefore had an interest in participating in those tournaments in order to be one of the nine best men and five best women from each category to be entered on the European selection list. It should be pointed out, however, that any right to participate in the Olympic Games on the basis of past results accrued not to the athlete himself but to his country's national federation. In other words, it was quite possible for an athlete to be ranked first on the European selection list but ultimately not to participate in the Atlanta Games if his federation asked someone else to represent his country.

5 In order not to lose all hope of being selected for Atlanta, on 26 January 1996 Ms Deliège made an application for interim measures to the Tribunal de Première Instance, Namur. She sought, first, an order requiring the Belgian sports federations (the LFJ and the LBJ) to take the appropriate steps to enter her for the international tournament in Paris and, second, an order referring to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling a question on the extent to which the EJU's aforementioned rules on participation in Category A tournaments are in conformity with Article 59 et seq. and Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty.

6 Before the same court, Ms Deliège then brought against the LFJ, the LBJ and the president of the LBJ, François Pacquée, an action seeking, first, a ruling that the system of selecting judokas for international tournaments is unlawful because it is contrary to the principle of freedom to provide services and the freedom of sportsmen to pursue their profession, second - in the event that the national court considered it appropriate to refer a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice - the adoption of a delaying measure pending an answer to the question referred and third, an order requiring the defendant federations and the president of the LBJ to pay her BEF 30 million by way of compensation.

III - The questions referred

7 When making the order granting interim measures, the President of the Tribunal de Première Instance, Namur, sought from the Court of Justice a preliminary ruling (Case C-51/96), as to:

`Whether or not rules requiring professional or semi-professional sportsmen or persons aspiring to such status to have been authorised or selected by their national federation in order to be able to compete in an international competition and laying down national entry quotas for similar competitions are contrary to the Treaty of Rome, in particular Articles 59 to 66 and Articles 85 and 86.'

8 When required to give judgment on the substance of the case, the Tribunal de Première Instance, Namur, taking the view that there was a risk that the Court of Justice would declare the question referred in Case C-51/96 inadmissible, considered it appropriate to stay proceedings pending a preliminary ruling (Case C-191/97) as to:

`Whether or not it is contrary to the Treaty of Rome, in particular Articles 59, 85 and 86 of the Treaty, to require professional or semi-professional athletes or persons aspiring to professional or semi-professional activity to be authorised by their federation in order to be able to compete in an international competition which does not involve national teams competing against each other.'

IV - Case C-51/96

9 The sports federations, the Belgian, Greek and Italian Governments and the Commission submit that the question referred in Case C-51/96 is inadmissible. They put forward three arguments in support of that view. First, they submit that the answer to the question concerned would be of absolutely no use to the national court. The proceedings for interim measures in which the question was submitted had come to an end when the matter was referred to the Court of Justice and the referring court had therefore ceased to be seised of the case. The point of law raised in the question referred relates to the substance of the case, in respect of which the court hearing the application for interim measures is not entitled to take action. Consequently, in accordance with the rule in Pardini, (4) the question referred should not be answered. The second argument in favour of inadmissibility is based on the content of the question. In particular, it states in effect that that question is manifestly hypothetical and unrelated to Community law, inasmuch as it concerns amateur sport. Finally, by way of the third plea as to inadmissibility, the aforementioned parties claim that the court making the reference has not adequately described the factual and legal circumstances in which the question arose. More specifically, in the absence of a full and clear explanation of the facts and law involved in the dispute, the Court of Justice will not be able to give a satisfactory answer to the question referred, especially as that question concerns complex legal issues such as those relating to Community competition law. (5)

10 I consider it appropriate to look more closely at the first of the pleas as to inadmissibility. According to Pardini, (6) the Court of Justice...