Latest News
The CJEU's ISU Decision: Implications for Sports Arbitration and EU Competition Law
The CJEU's ISU Decision: Implications for Sports Arbitration and EU Competition Law
Introduction:
The recent decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the International Skating Union (ISU) case has significant implications for the review mechanism of sports arbitration in Switzerland. This article explores the key aspects of the decision and its impact on Sports Governing Bodies (SGBs), athletes, and the dispute resolution landscape in light of EU competition law.
The ISU Decision and Minimum Requirements for CAS Arbitration Agreements:
The CJEU's decision centred around the ISU's prior authorization and eligibility rules, finding them in violation of EU competition law. From a sports arbitration perspective, the decision outlined crucial considerations for the minimum requirements of the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) mandatory arbitration agreements within the ISU rules.
Arbitration's Vital Role in Safeguarding a Level-Playing Field:
Arbitration has long been viewed as the essential means for resolving sports disputes, offering worldwide acceptance based on the New York Convention. This global acceptance is crucial for maintaining a uniform and harmonized application of sports rules, ensuring a level playing field in international sports competitions.
Mandatory Arbitration and Effective Judicial Review:
The CJEU emphasized the need for effective judicial review when mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction is conferred to CAS for reviewing SGBs' decisions. This review must extend to ensuring compliance with EU law, specifically Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The CJEU held that the Swiss Federal Court's (SFC) current review mechanism falls short of providing adequate protection for economic rights under EU competition law.
Insufficient Scope of SFC's Review and Immediate Consequences:
Examining the SFC's review mechanism, the CJEU found it inadequate, as it does not consider whether CAS awards comply with EU competition law. This inadequacy reinforces the anticompetitive nature of SGBs' substantive rules, as seen in the ISU case. The CJEU's decision sends a clear signal to CAS and SGBs that mandatory CAS arbitration agreements may not be permissible when dealing with economic activities in the EU.
Extending Concerns Against SFC's Review Mechanism:
The CJEU's decision aligns with previous rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on athletes' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The criticism of the SFC's limited scope of review has been consistent, with the CJEU's decision adding to concerns raised by the ECtHR regarding procedural and substantive rights.
What's Next for SGBs and Athletes:
For SGBs, the CJEU's decision creates legal uncertainty regarding their choice of dispute settlement. The advantage of limited review in Switzerland has been challenged, prompting considerations for alternative sports arbitration institutions that allow seats in EU member states. The CJEU's decision provides new arguments for athletes seeking enhanced rights in CAS proceedings and widens procedural possibilities in litigation against SGBs' rules containing mandatory CAS arbitration.
Conclusion:
The CJEU's ISU decision marks a significant development in the intersection of sports arbitration and EU competition law. While it raises challenges for SGBs accustomed to the Swiss system, it also strengthens the position of athletes and entities seeking to protect their economic rights. As the sports arbitration landscape evolves, SGBs may need to reconsider their dispute resolution mechanisms, and CAS might need to adapt its rules to align with the CJEU's requirements. Until further clarity emerges, the legal terrain remains dynamic, impacting the delicate balance between sports governance and the protection of individual rights.
- The CJEU's decision centered around the ISU's prior authorization and eligibility rules, finding them in violation of EU competition law.
- The CJEU held that the Swiss Federal Court's (SFC) current review mechanism falls short of providing adequate protection for economic rights under EU competition law.
- The CJEU's decision aligns with previous rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on athletes' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
