European Union Law and Sporting Nationality: Scope, Restriction, Justification

  • Jan ExnerEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Law book series (BRIEFSLAW)


The CJEU, the European Commission and other EU bodies and institutions follow a three-step test which they use in general for an assessment of compliance of a measure with EU law in the internal market, when they assess the compliance of sporting rules with EU law. The CJEU, the European Commission and other EU bodies and institutions firstly consider whether sports rules fall within the scope of EU law and therefore cannot escape review of EU authorities (3.1).


Legal Documents

  1. Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amendingGoogle Scholar
  2. T-93/18, International Skating Union v. CommissionGoogle Scholar
  3. General Programme for the abolition of restrictions of freedom to provide services of 18 December 1961, Official Journal of 15 January 1962, Special Editions, Second Series, IXGoogle Scholar
  4. Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, pp 77–123Google Scholar
  5. Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, OJ L 141, 27.5.2011, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  6. Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (Brussels: European Commission, 2010)Google Scholar


  1. Case C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson, [2010] EU:C:2013:105Google Scholar
  2. Case C-305/87, Commission v. Greece, [1989] EU:C:1989:218Google Scholar
  3. Case C-438/00, Deutscher Handballbund, [2003] EU:C:2003:255Google Scholar
  4. Case C-13/76, Dona v. Mantero, [1976] EU:C:1976:115Google Scholar
  5. Case C-148/02, Garcia Avello, [2003] ECLI:EU:C:2003:539Google Scholar
  6. Case C-55/94, Gebhard v. Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, [1995] EU:C:1995:411Google Scholar
  7. Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, [2001] EU:C:2001:458Google Scholar
  8. Case C-2/74, Jean Reyners v. Belgian State, [1974] EU:C:1974:68Google Scholar
  9. Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri, [2007] EU:C:2007:809Google Scholar
  10. Case C-176/96, Lehtonen and Castors Braine, [2000] EU:C:2000:201Google Scholar
  11. Case C-10/90, Masgio v. Bundesknappschaft, [1982] EU:C:1991:107Google Scholar
  12. Case C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission, [2006] EU:C:2006:492Google Scholar
  13. Case C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais, [2010] EU:C:2010:143Google Scholar
  14. Case C-152/08, Real Sociedad de Fútbol and Kahveci, [2008] EU:C:2008:450Google Scholar
  15. C-117/76 and C-16/77, Ruckdeschel and Others v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen, [1977] EU:C:1977:160Google Scholar
  16. Case C-265/03, Simutenkov, [2005] EU:C:2005:213Google Scholar
  17. Case C-419/92, Scholz v. Opera Universitaria di Cagliari and Cinzia Porcedda, [1994] ECLI:EU:C:1994:62Google Scholar
  18. Case C-438/05, The International Transport Workers’ Federation and The Finnish Seamen’s Union, [2007] EU:C:2007:772Google Scholar
  19. Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463Google Scholar
  20. Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463, Opinion of the Advocate General LenzGoogle Scholar
  21. Case C-33/74, Van Binsbergen v. Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid, [1974] EU:C:1974:131Google Scholar
  22. Case C-36/74, Walrave and Koch v. Association Union Cycliste Internationale and Others, [1974] EU:C:1974:140Google Scholar
  23. Case C-36/74, Walrave and Koch v. Association Union Cycliste Internationale and Others, [1974] EU:C:1974:140, Opinion of the Advocate General Warner, 1st colGoogle Scholar
  24. COMP/40208, International Skating Union’s Eligibility Rules [8 December 2017]Google Scholar


  1. Barnard C (2016) The substantive law of the EU, The four freedoms, 5th edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Davies M (2003) Nationality discrimination in the European internal market, Kluwer Law InternationalGoogle Scholar
  3. Dubey J-P (2000) La libre circulation des sportifs en Europe, Staempfli EditionsGoogle Scholar
  4. Hafner Y (2012) Athletes’ eligibility in national teams and EU law: what can we learn from two doped swimmers? In: Rigozzi A, Sprumont D, Hafner Y (eds), Citius, Altius, Fortius—Mélanges en l’honneur de Denis Oswald, Helbing & Lichtenhahn (Bâle), pp 215–238Google Scholar
  5. Hamerník P (2014) O vlivu práva EU na status sportovce. In: Pichrt J (ed), Sport a (nejen) pracovní právo, Wolters Kluwer, pp 49–58Google Scholar
  6. Hamerník P (2012) Sportovní právo. Hledání rovnováhy mezi specifickou sportovní úpravou a platným právem, Praha: Ústav státu a právu AV ČRGoogle Scholar
  7. Kennelly B, Richards T, Lewis A (2014) EU and UK competition law rules and sport. In: Lewis A, Taylor J (eds), Sport: law and practice, 3rd ed. Bloomsbury Professional, pp 1124–1232Google Scholar
  8. Kochenov D (2009) Ius tractum of many faces: European citizenship and the difficult relationship between status and rights. Columbia J Europ Law 2:169–237Google Scholar
  9. McCutcheon JP (2001) National eligibility rules after Bosman. In: Caiger A (ed), Professional sport in the EU: regulation and re-regulation, T.M.C. Asser PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Parrish R, Miettinen S (2008) The sporting exception in European union law. Asser Press, T.M.CCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Poruban O (2015) Priama diskriminácia na základe štátnej príslušnosti pri výkone športovej činnosti, Učená právnická spoločnosť, 6 May 2015Google Scholar
  12. Tomášek M, Týč V (eds) (2013), Právo Evropské unie – 2. aktualizované vydání, LegesGoogle Scholar
  13. Tridimas T (2006) The general principles of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Van den Bogaert SCG (2015) Editorial. Bosman: one for all. Maastricht J Europ Comp Law 2015(2):175–178Google Scholar
  15. Van den Bogaert SCG (2005) Practical regulation of the mobility of sportsmen in the EU post Bosman. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  16. Van den Bogaert SCG (2000) The European court of justice on the Tatami: Ippon, Waza-Ari or Koka? Europ Law Rev 25:554–563Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations