Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Case C-36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Leading Cases in Sports Law

Part of the book series: ASSER International Sports Law Series ((ASSER))

Abstract

The claimants, Dutch nationals, offered their services for remuneration to act as pacemakers on motorcycles in medium distance races for participants (called “stayers”) who cycled in the lee of the motorcycle. The claimants provide their services under agreements with the stayers or the national associations or with sponsors. The first defendants, as the rule making body for the sport, and including its world championships, endorsed a regulation that provided “as from 1973 the pacemaker must be of the same nationality as the stayer”. The claimants considered this provision to be incompatible with EU law in so far as it prevented a pacemaker of one Member State from offering his services to a stayer of another Member State. The claimants brought an action against the defendant in a court in Utrecht for a declaration that the rule was void and an order that the defendants allow them to compete at the world championships. The Utrecht court took the view that questions of the interpretation of EU law arose and referred a number of questions to the European Court of Justice for preliminary ruling.

Richard Parrish, Professor of Sports Law.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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.

    The preliminary reference procedure at the time was regulated by Article 177 of the EC Treaty, now Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

  2. 2.

    Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, para 4.

  3. 3.

    For an extended discussion on sport as economic activity see Van den Bogaert 2005, 40–75.

  4. 4.

    Weatherill 2007a, 18.

  5. 5.

    Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, para 5.

  6. 6.

    Case 13/76 Donà v Mantero [1976] ECR 1333, para 12.

  7. 7.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 72.

  8. 8.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 70.

  9. 9.

    Case C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège [2000] ECR I-2549, para 13.

  10. 10.

    Opinion of Advocate General Warner in Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, 1426.

  11. 11.

    Opinion of Advocate General Warner in Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, 1426.

  12. 12.

    The relevant European integration literature is too voluminous for summary here but for a useful introduction see O’Neill 1996.

  13. 13.

    Case 152/73 Sotgiu [1974] ECR 153.

  14. 14.

    Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, para 8.

  15. 15.

    Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, para 9.

  16. 16.

    Opinion of Advocate General Warner in Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, 1427.

  17. 17.

    Opinion of Advocate General Trabucchi in Case 13/76 Donà v Mantero [1976] ECR 1333, 1344.

  18. 18.

    Weatherill 2007a, 21.

  19. 19.

    Case 13/76 Donà v Mantero [1976] ECR 1333, para 19.

  20. 20.

    This is the opinion of the Advocate General Lenz in Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921 para 138. See also Parrish and Miettinen 2008, 84; Van den Bogaert 2005, 342 and McCutcheon, (2000) 132–133.

  21. 21.

    Opinion of Advocate General Trabucchi in Case 13/76 Donà v Mantero [1976] ECR 1333, 1344.

  22. 22.

    Weatherill 2007a, 20.

  23. 23.

    Opinion of Advocate General Warner in Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, 1427.

  24. 24.

    Opinion of Advocate General Warner in Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, 1426.

  25. 25.

    Weatherill 2007a, 24.

  26. 26.

    Van den Bogaert 2005, 360.

  27. 27.

    Case T-193/02 Piau [2005] ECR II-209, para 102.

  28. 28.

    Opinion of Advocate General Warner in Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, 1424.

  29. 29.

    Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, para 17.

  30. 30.

    See, for instance, Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 82 and Case 325/08 Bernard [2010] ECR I-2177, para 30.

  31. 31.

    See Case 43/75 Defrenne [1976] ECR 455, para 39.

  32. 32.

    Case 281/98 Roman Angonese [2000] ECR I-4139, para 36.

  33. 33.

    Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, para 18.

  34. 34.

    Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, para 19.

  35. 35.

    Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, paras 20 and 21.

  36. 36.

    Opinion of Advocate General Warner in Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, 1425.

  37. 37.

    Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, para 28.

  38. 38.

    Beloff et al. 1999, 69.

  39. 39.

    Directive 2004/38/EC, The Citizenship Directive [2004] OJ L 158/77.

  40. 40.

    TMC Asser Institute et al. 2010.

  41. 41.

    As indeed has the CJEU in, for example, Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 106.

  42. 42.

    Declaration 29 to the Treaty of Amsterdam.

  43. 43.

    Nice European Council: Presidency Conclusions 2000.

  44. 44.

    European Commission 2007, Chap. 2 and European Commission 2011, Chap. 2.

  45. 45.

    Commission Press Release IP/04/1222 of 13 October 2004.

  46. 46.

    Case C-249/83 Hoeckx [1985] ECR 973, para 20.

  47. 47.

    Case C-334/94 Commission v France [1996] ECR I-1307, paras 21–23.

  48. 48.

    Details of the letter have been published in Engelbrecht 2010, 105–106.

  49. 49.

    Engelbrecht 2010, 105.

  50. 50.

    Engelbrecht 2010, 105. The phrase derives from Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, para 31.

  51. 51.

    Article 21(1)TFEU.

  52. 52.

    For a sports specific discussion on this issue see Beloff et al. 1999, 71–72.

  53. 53.

    See Miettinen 2006, 57–62 and Wathelet 2007, 3–12.

  54. 54.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 76.

  55. 55.

    Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina [2006] ECR I-6991.

  56. 56.

    Weatherill 2007b, 50.

  57. 57.

    Comp 38.158 Meca-Medina, Decision of 1 August 2002.

  58. 58.

    Case T-313/02 Meca-Medina [2004] ECR II-3291, para 45.

  59. 59.

    Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina [2006] ECR I-6991, para 27.

  60. 60.

    Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina [2006] ECR I-6991, para 45.

  61. 61.

    Weatherill 2007a, 345.

  62. 62.

    Weatherill 2007b, 60.

  63. 63.

    Article 45(3)TFEU.

  64. 64.

    Van den Bogaert 2005, 346.

  65. 65.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 135.

  66. 66.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 131.

  67. 67.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paras 133–134.

  68. 68.

    Van den Bogaert 2005.

  69. 69.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 76.

  70. 70.

    Weatherill 2007a, 99.

  71. 71.

    Van den Bogaert 2005, 338.

  72. 72.

    Weatherill 2007a, 25 and Van den Bogaert 2005, 339.

  73. 73.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, Opinion of Advocate General Lenz, para 139.

  74. 74.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, Opinion of Advocate General Lenz, para 216.

  75. 75.

    Case C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège [2000] ECR I-2549, Opinion of Advocate General Comas, para 84.

  76. 76.

    TMC Asser Institute et al. 2010.

  77. 77.

    TMC Asser Institute et al. 2010, 225.

  78. 78.

    Case C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège [2000] ECR I-2549, Opinion of Advocate General Comas, para 84.

  79. 79.

    Article 165(1)TFEU.

  80. 80.

    Edge Hill University et al. 2010.

  81. 81.

    See, for instance, CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and Slavia Prague v UEFA, paras 79, 80 and 90.

References

  • Beloff M et al (1999) Sports law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Edge Hill University et al (2010) The Lisbon Treaty and EU sports policy. Tender No EAC/19/2009, Study for the Education and Culture Committee, European Parliament, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelbrecht G (2010) Discrimination against EU Nationals in amateur sports. Int Sports Law J 1–2:105–106

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2007) White paper on sport, COM(2007) 391 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011) Developing the European dimension in sport, COM(2011) 12 final

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutcheon P (2000) National eligibility rules after Bosman. In: Caiger A, Gardiner S (eds) Professional sport in the EU: regulation and re-regulation. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 127–139

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen S (2006) The independent European sports review: a critical overview. Int Sports Law J 3–4:57–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Nice European Council: Presidency Conclusions (2000) Declaration on the specific characteristics of sport and its social function of which account should be taken in implementing common policies. www.european-council.europa.eu/council-meetings/conclusions. Accessed 25 Jan 2012

  • O’Neill M (1996) The politics of European integration. Routledge, Abingdon

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parrish R, Miettinen S (2008) The sporting exception in European Union law. TMC Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • TMC Asser Institute et al (2010) Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions. Tender No EAC/19/2009, Commissioned by the Directorate-General for Education and Culture, European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wathelet M (2007) Sport governance and EU legal order: present and future. Int Sports Law J 3–4:3–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2007a) On overlapping legal orders: what is a ‘purely sporting’ rule. In: Bogusz B et al (eds) The regulation of sport in the European union. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 48–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2007b) European sports law: collected papers. TMC Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law and Criminology, Centre for Sports Law Research, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, UK

    Richard Parrish

Authors
  1. Richard Parrish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Parrish .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Law, Queen's University Belfast, University Square 27-30, Belfast, BT7 1NN, Antrim, United Kingdom

    Jack Anderson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Parrish, R. (2013). Case C-36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405. In: Anderson, J. (eds) Leading Cases in Sports Law. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-909-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation