Sport and the EuropeanCourtofJustice
The ECJ is an important agenda setter. Court rulings play an important part
in defining the content of the EU’s systemic agenda and the conditions under
which an issue is transferred to the institutional agenda for active policy
development. The ECJ’s line of reasoning in relation to sport has been developed within the context of a number of important institutional relationships.
As such, the ECJ’s role in establishing the boundaries of EU sports regulation is not deterministic.
In Walrave, Donà and Heylens, the ECJ
The increasing commercialisation of sport raises important questions concerning regulation. The development of the European Union (EU) and the internationalization of sporting competition have added an international dimension to this debate. Yet sport is not only a business, it is a social and cultural activity. Can regulation at the EU level reconcile this tension? Adopting a distinctive legal and political analysis, this book argues that the EU is receptive to the claim of sport for special treatment before the law. It investigates the birth of EU sports law and policy by examining the impact of the Bosman ruling and other important European Court of Justice decisions, the relationship between sport and EU competition law, focusing particularly on the broadcasting of sport, the organization of sport and the international transfer system, and the relationship between sport and the EU Treaty, focusing in particular on the impact of the Amsterdam and Nice declarations on sport and the significance of the Helsinki report on sport. This text raises questions concerning the appropriate theoretical tools for analysing European integration.
This chapter examines the political context of sports relationship with the European Union (EU). The 1994 Larive report links the active or passive participation in sport with the social and cultural identity of people. The Pack report reflects the more socio-cultural tendencies within the Parliament. The Television Without Frontiers (TWF) Directive goes against a trend in European sport favouring a free market in broadcasting. The Amsterdam Declaration added impetus to the socio-cultural agenda whilst equipping them with an additional institutional venue to exploit. The Helsinki report represents a continuation of Parliamentary thinking regarding the importance of extending the right of free movement to all EU citizens. Policy change is evident within the sports policy subsystem. The regulation of sport in the EU has been politicised. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings/decisions are significant in that they mark the birth of an area of EU law called ‘EU sports law’.
The European union’s policy in the field of arms export controls
Sibylle Bauer and Eric Remacle
undercutting. Before undercutting can take place, the two
governments involved are required to enter into consultations.
As a Council Declaration, the Code agreement is only
politically, not legally binding. And since it was agreed within CFSP, on
the basis of Title V of the TEU, its implementation cannot be enforced by
the EuropeanCourtofJustice (Article 46 TEU). Thus no Community
legislation on arms exports exists to date. And
front line of major political controversies and, in many
instances, the full glare of publicity. This may be unearthing
facts and attributing fault at the expense of eroding judicial
independence. Society might or might not regard this as a
risk worth taking if it provides an independent review of
government decisions (Loughlin 2001: 41).
The European dimension
The development of the European Union (EU) is another
example of how judges now appear to be at the apex of
power. The EuropeanCourtofJustice provides member
states with a valuable means of resolving
sport has no place in the Treaty. Nevertheless,
Article 3 does state that the EU is to establish an area where goods, persons,
services and capital can freely circulate and where competition is not distorted. As an activity of undoubted commercial significance, sports bodies
must therefore ensure that their activities do not contradict these Treaty provisions. As the EuropeanCourtofJustice’s (ECJ’s) ruling in Bosman demonstrated, EU law can have a profound impact on sport. Although this brief
explanation does not justify the label ‘EU sports law’, it does explain
)/Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie
European and cross-national
ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific (states) CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy COREPER Committee of Permanent Representatives CSCE Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe EC European Community ECB European Central Bank ECJ EuropeanCourtofJustice ECOFIN Economic and Finance Council (of Ministers) ECSC European Coal and Steel Community ECU European
between the EU and its member states resembles a federal system
in many ways (Pollack 2005). However, Pollack (2005) argues that the way
that this is expressed in such vague language implies that most policy areas
are dealt with at both the national and the supranational levels. The vague
nature of this institutional arrangement enables the EuropeanCourtofJustice to clarify the limitations that are not established in the Treaties.
Consequently, whenever there is disagreement, the European Court of
The EU’s policy towards Mercosur
Justice will decide who
governments for this, or
they may blame Brussels. If they choose the former, the government in
question normally throws up its arms and points to Brussels. However,
it is difficult to pinpoint responsibility in Brussels. The Council of Ministers
is still a secretive body, with virtually none of its meetings public, although
it is a fundamental tenet of democracy that any law-making meeting of
any legislative body must be public. The same holds for meetings of the
In 1996 the United Kingdom was forced through a verdict by the EU’s
it has been difficult to safeguard the rights of citizens. The European Union has
introduced a wide range of rights for workers, consumers and recipients of
welfare benefits. Enforced by the EuropeanCourtofJustice, various European
Acts are now effectively entrenched in British law.
4 British courts must now bow to the superior status of the EuropeanCourtofJustice where European laws are concerned. The House of Lords is no longer
the ultimate court of appeal in many cases. This role has now been transferred
Britain has made