Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sporting Nationality in the Context of European Union Law

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Law ((BRIEFSLAW))

  • 283 Accesses

Abstract

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a general overview of the application of this test to the free movement of persons and services, see Barnard (2016).

  2. 2.

    This division is nicely illustrated for example in Case C-176/96, Lehtonen and Castors Braine, [2000] EU:C:2000:201, First, the ECJ assesses whether Mr. Lehtonen and respective basketball rules fall within the scope of EU law (paragraphs 32–46). Thereafter, the existence of an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers is examined (paragraphs 47–50). Finally, the ECJ engages in exploring whether such a restriction can be justified (paragraphs 51–59).

  3. 3.

    Case C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission, [2006] EU:C:2006:492.

  4. 4.

    Case C-36/74, Walrave and Koch v. Association Union Cycliste Internationale and Others, [1974] EU:C:1974:140.

  5. 5.

    Case C-36/74, Walrave and Koch v. Association Union Cycliste Internationale and Others, [1974] EU:C:1974:140.

  6. 6.

    Ibid., paragraph 17.

  7. 7.

    Ibid., paragraph 4.

  8. 8.

    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 col., p. 1526.

  9. 9.

    Case C-36/74, Walrave and Koch v. Association Union Cycliste Internationale and Others, [1974] EU:C:1974:140, paragraph 8.

  10. 10.

    Case C-13/76, Dona v. Mantero, [1976] EU:C:1976:115.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., paragraph 5.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., paragraphs 12–13.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., paragraph 14.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., paragraph 15; see also Barnard (2016).

  15. 15.

    Case C-13/76, Dona v. Mantero, [1976] EU:C:1976:115, paragraph 19.

  16. 16.

    Barnard (2016).

  17. 17.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., paragraph 76.

  19. 19.

    Ibid.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., paragraph 128.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., paragraph 129; see also Case C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais, [2010] EU:C:2010:143, paragraphs 30–32.

  22. 22.

    Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (2010), p. 29.

  23. 23.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463, paragraphs 130–133.

  24. 24.

    Ibid.

  25. 25.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 103.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., paragraphs 103; see also Barnard (2016).

  27. 27.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463, paragraphs 105–114.

  28. 28.

    Van den Bogaert (2015), pp. 175–176.

  29. 29.

    Ibid. On the practical consequences of the Bosman ruling see also Hamerník (2012), pp. 50–53; see also Hamerník (2014), pp. 49–58.

  30. 30.

    Joined cases C-51/96 and C-191/97, Deliège, [2000] EU:C:2000:199, paragraph 43.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., paragraph 69; on the reasoning and the implications of the judgment see also Van den Bogaert (2000), pp. 554–563.

  33. 33.

    Case C-176/96, Lehtonen and Castors Braine, [2000] EU:C:2000:201.

  34. 34.

    The transfer window is the period during the year in which a club can transfer players from other countries into their playing staff.

  35. 35.

    Case C-176/96, Lehtonen and Castors Braine, [2000] EU:C:2000:201, paragraph 49.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., paragraph 59; see also Barnard (2016).

  37. 37.

    Case C-438/00, Deutscher Handballbund, [2003] EU:C:2003:255; Case C-265/03, Simutenkov, [2005] EU:C:2005:213; Case C-152/08, Real Sociedad de Fútbol and Kahveci, [2008] EU:C:2008:450.

  38. 38.

    Case C-438/00, Deutscher Handballbund, [2003] EU:C:2003:255, paragraph 54; see also Case C-265/03, Simutenkov, [2005] EU:C:2005:213, paragraphs 38–39 and Case C-152/08, Real Sociedad de Fútbol and Kahveci, [2008] EU:C:2008:450, paragraphs 31–32.

  39. 39.

    Hafner (2012), p. 224.

  40. 40.

    Van den Bogaert (2005), p. 340.

  41. 41.

    Parrish and Miettinen (2008), p. 84.

  42. 42.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 76.

  43. 43.

    Parrish and Miettinen (2008), p. 88.

  44. 44.

    Case C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission, [2006] EU:C:2006:492, paragraph 22.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., paragraph 27.

  46. 46.

    The European Commission has recently confirmed this approach in its case against the International Skating Union (ISU). The European Commission decided that the ISU infringed Article 101 TFEU and the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) by the adoption and enforcement of its eligibility rules. See case COMP/40208, International Skating Union's Eligibility Rules (8 December 2017). The appeal of the International Skating Union (ISU) against the European Commission’ decision has been pending before the General Court (EGC)—Case T-93/18, International Skating Union v. Commission.

  47. 47.

    Parrish and Miettinen (2008), p. 88.

  48. 48.

    Case C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission, [2006] EU:C:2006:492, paragraph 28.

  49. 49.

    See Anderson, R. Parrish, B. García (Ed.) (2018), p. 488 for a great and in-depth analysis of various legal issues at the intersection of EU law and sport.

  50. 50.

    Joined cases C-117/76 and C-16/77, Ruckdeschel and Others v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen, [1977] EU:C:1977:160, paragraph 7.

  51. 51.

    Tridimas (2006), p. 118.

  52. 52.

    Article 18 TFEU: “Within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.”

    Article 21(2) of the Charter: “Within the scope of application of the Treaty establishing the European Community and of the Treaty on European Union, and without prejudice to the special provisions of those Treaties, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.”

  53. 53.

    Tridimas (2006), p. 119.

  54. 54.

    Case C-148/02, Garcia Avello, [2003] ECLI:EU:C:2003:539, paragraph 31.

  55. 55.

    Barnard (2016).

  56. 56.

    Davies (2003), pp. 22–31.

  57. 57.

    Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (2010): 20.

  58. 58.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463, paragraphs 92–104.

  59. 59.

    Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (2010): 20.

  60. 60.

    See inter alia Case C-10/90, Masgio v. Bundesknappschaft, [1982] EU:C:1991:107; Case C-419/92, Scholz v. Opera Universitaria di Cagliari and Cinzia Porcedda, [1994] ECLI:EU:C:1994:62.

  61. 61.

    See inter alia Case C-305/87, Commission v. Greece, [1989] EU:C:1989:218, paragraph 12.

  62. 62.

    See inter alia Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, [2001] EU:C:2001:458, paragraph 31.

  63. 63.

    Kochenov (2009), p. 173.

  64. 64.

    Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (2010): 24.

  65. 65.

    Ibid.,: 28.

  66. 66.

    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 amending 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. 77–123.

  67. 67.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 93.

  68. 68.

    Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (2010): 18.

  69. 69.

    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. 1–12.

  70. 70.

    See, amongst others, Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 82.

  71. 71.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463. See also Poruban (2015) [online], 6 May 2015.

  72. 72.

    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 Lenz.

  73. 73.

    Case C-265/03, Simutenkov, [2005] EU:C:2005:213; see also Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (2010): 17.

  74. 74.

    Case C-438/00, Deutscher Handballbund, [2003] EU:C:2003:255.

  75. 75.

    Case C-152/08, Real Sociedad de Fútbol and Kahveci, [2008] EU:C:2008:450.

  76. 76.

    Case C-33/74, Van Binsbergen v. Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid, [1974] EU:C:1974:131; see also Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions, (Brussels: European Commission, 2010): 19.

  77. 77.

    See, inter alia, Case C-36/74, Walrave and Koch v. Association Union Cycliste Internationale and Others, [1974] EU:C:1974:140, paragraph 17; Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri, [2007] EU:C:2007:809, paragraph 98.

  78. 78.

    Case C-36/74, Walrave and Koch v. Association Union Cycliste Internationale and Others, [1974] EU:C:1974:140, paragraph 17.

  79. 79.

    See also Case C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais, [2010] EU:C:2010:143, paragraphs 28–30.

  80. 80.

    Case C-2/74, Jean Reyners v. Belgian State, [1974] EU:C:1974:68.

  81. 81.

    Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (2010): 19.

  82. 82.

    Case C-438/05, The International Transport Workers' Federation and The Finnish Seamen's Union, [2007] EU:C:2007:772, paragraph 61.

  83. 83.

    I am aware of the fact that, especially regarding competition law, this book contains many elements and conlusions which concern sporting governing bodies as undertakings or their associations. However, I primarily focus on athletes as individuals and deal with competition law primarily from the point of view of athletes as undertakings engaging in free competition or as consumers.

  84. 84.

    To this extent see B. Kennelly, T. Richards, A. Lewis, “EU and UK Competition Law Rules and Sport” in A. Lewis, J. Taylor (Eds.), Sport: Law and Practice, 3rd ed. (Bloomsbury Professional, 2014), pp. 1124–1232.

  85. 85.

    Hafner (2012), p. 222.

  86. 86.

    Case C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission, [2006] EU:C:2006:492.

  87. 87.

    See, amongst others, Case C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson, [2010] EU:C:2013:105, paragraph 19.

  88. 88.

    Explanations relating to the Charter provide that Article 15 of the Charter deals with the three freedoms guaranteed by Articles 26, 45, 49 and 56 TFEU, namely freedom of movement for workers, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services.

  89. 89.

    Explanations relating to the Charter provide that Article 16 of the Charter is based on the ECJ’s case-law which has recognised freedom to exercise an economic or commercial activity as well as freedom of contract.

  90. 90.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 129; see also Case C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais, [2010] EU:C:2010:143, paragraphs 30–32.

  91. 91.

    On derogations, limitations, conditions and justifications of free movement of persons, see, in general Barnard (2016).

  92. 92.

    Case C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais, [2010] EU:C:2010:143, paragraph 34; see also Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 96.

  93. 93.

    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, IX, p. 32.

  94. 94.

    See, amongst others, Joined cases C-51/96 and C-191/97, Deliège, [2000] EU:C:2000:199, paragraph 64; Case C-176/96, Lehtonen and Castors Braine, [2000] EU:C:2000:201, paragraphs 47–50; Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 96; Case C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais, [2010] EU:C:2010:143, paragraph 34; see also Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions, (Brussels: European Commission, 2010): 229–230.

  95. 95.

    Case C-176/96, Lehtonen and Castors Braine, [2000] EU:C:2000:201, paragraphs 47–50; see also Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions, (Brussels: European Commission, 2010): 229–230.

  96. 96.

    McCutcheon (2001), p. 131.

  97. 97.

    McCutcheon (2001), p. 131.

  98. 98.

    Hafner (2012), p. 220.

  99. 99.

    Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (2010): 230.

  100. 100.

    Barnard (2016).

  101. 101.

    General interests recognized by the EU are particularly important in the context of fundamental rights. Article 52(1) of the Charter: “Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.” Explanations relating to the Charter provide that the reference to general interests recognised by the EU covers the objectives of the Treaties and other interests protected by specific provisions of the Treaties.

  102. 102.

    See inter alia Barnard (2016); Van den Bogaert (2005), p. 338.

  103. 103.

    See in general Barnard (2016).

  104. 104.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 86.

  105. 105.

    Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions, (Brussels: European Commission, 2010): 29.

  106. 106.

    Dubey (2000), p. 441.

  107. 107.

    Van den Bogaert (2005), p. 338.

  108. 108.

    Hafner (2012), p. 221.

  109. 109.

    Hafner (2012), pp. 221–222.

  110. 110.

    Van den Bogaert (2005), p. 339.

  111. 111.

    Ibid., p. 338.

  112. 112.

    Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (Brussels: European Commission, 2010): 230; see, amongst others, Case C-55/94, Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, [1995] EU:C:1995:411.

  113. 113.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463; Case C-176/96, Lehtonen and Castors Braine, [2000] EU:C:2000:201, paragraph 53; see also Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (2010): 230.

  114. 114.

    Barnard (2016).

  115. 115.

    Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (2010): 230–231.

  116. 116.

    Ibid.

  117. 117.

    See inter alia Case C-55/94, Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, [1995] EU:C:1995:411, paragraph 37.

  118. 118.

    Ibid. The Charter includes a similar test of propotionality regarding limitations of fundamental rights. Article 52(1) of the Charter provides that “Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.”

  119. 119.

    Barnard (2016).

  120. 120.

    Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (Brussels: European Commission, 2010): 24.

  121. 121.

    Barnard (2016).

  122. 122.

    Case C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais, [2010] EU:C:2010:143, paragraphs 46–48.

  123. 123.

    Case C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission, [2006] EU:C:2006:492, paragraph 28.

References

Legal Documents

  • 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 amending

    Google Scholar 

  • T-93/18, International Skating Union v. Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, IX

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 77–123

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions (Brussels: European Commission, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

Cases

  • Case C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson, [2010] EU:C:2013:105

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-305/87, Commission v. Greece, [1989] EU:C:1989:218

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-438/00, Deutscher Handballbund, [2003] EU:C:2003:255

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-13/76, Dona v. Mantero, [1976] EU:C:1976:115

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-148/02, Garcia Avello, [2003] ECLI:EU:C:2003:539

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-55/94, Gebhard v. Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, [1995] EU:C:1995:411

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, [2001] EU:C:2001:458

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-2/74, Jean Reyners v. Belgian State, [1974] EU:C:1974:68

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri, [2007] EU:C:2007:809

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-176/96, Lehtonen and Castors Braine, [2000] EU:C:2000:201

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-10/90, Masgio v. Bundesknappschaft, [1982] EU:C:1991:107

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission, [2006] EU:C:2006:492

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais, [2010] EU:C:2010:143

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-152/08, Real Sociedad de Fútbol and Kahveci, [2008] EU:C:2008:450

    Google Scholar 

  • C-117/76 and C-16/77, Ruckdeschel and Others v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen, [1977] EU:C:1977:160

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-265/03, Simutenkov, [2005] EU:C:2005:213

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-419/92, Scholz v. Opera Universitaria di Cagliari and Cinzia Porcedda, [1994] ECLI:EU:C:1994:62

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-438/05, The International Transport Workers’ Federation and The Finnish Seamen’s Union, [2007] EU:C:2007:772

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and Others v. Bosman and Others, [1995] EU:C:1995:463

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Lenz

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-33/74, Van Binsbergen v. Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid, [1974] EU:C:1974:131

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-36/74, Walrave and Koch v. Association Union Cycliste Internationale and Others, [1974] EU:C:1974:140

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 col

    Google Scholar 

  • COMP/40208, International Skating Union’s Eligibility Rules [8 December 2017]

    Google Scholar 

Bibliography

  • Barnard C (2016) The substantive law of the EU, The four freedoms, 5th edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies M (2003) Nationality discrimination in the European internal market, Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubey J-P (2000) La libre circulation des sportifs en Europe, Staempfli Editions

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 215–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamerník P (2014) O vlivu práva EU na status sportovce. In: Pichrt J (ed), Sport a (nejen) pracovní právo, Wolters Kluwer, pp 49–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamerník P (2012) Sportovní právo. Hledání rovnováhy mezi specifickou sportovní úpravou a platným právem, Praha: Ústav státu a právu AV ČR

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1124–1232

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov D (2009) Ius tractum of many faces: European citizenship and the difficult relationship between status and rights. Columbia J Europ Law 2:169–237

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish R, Miettinen S (2008) The sporting exception in European union law. Asser Press, T.M.C

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poruban O (2015) Priama diskriminácia na základe štátnej príslušnosti pri výkone športovej činnosti, Učená právnická spoločnosť, 6 May 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomášek M, Týč V (eds) (2013), Právo Evropské unie – 2. aktualizované vydání, Leges

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (2006) The general principles of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert SCG (2015) Editorial. Bosman: one for all. Maastricht J Europ Comp Law 2015(2):175–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert SCG (2005) Practical regulation of the mobility of sportsmen in the EU post Bosman. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert SCG (2000) The European court of justice on the Tatami: Ippon, Waza-Ari or Koka? Europ Law Rev 25:554–563

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Jan Exner

Authors
  1. Jan Exner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Exner .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Exner, J. (2019). European Union Law and Sporting Nationality: Scope, Restriction, Justification. In: Sporting Nationality in the Context of European Union Law. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10807-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10807-6_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-10806-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-10807-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation