The EU Court agrees with Agnelli

“On 1 April 2022 the federal prosecutor’s office of the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) has initiated disciplinary proceedings against several football clubs, including Juventus FC, as well as against some of their managers suspected of having participated in a system of fictitious capital gains on player transfers in order to artificially inflate the book value of such players. Subsequently, two Juventus managers were banned from carrying out any activity within the FIGC. These sanctions were subsequently extended worldwide by the Fédération internationale de Football Association (Fifa) and confirmed by the supreme Italian sports judge. Subsequently seized with an appeal, the Italian administrative judge, whose power is limited to that of granting compensation, without the possibility of canceling these sanctions, questioned the Court of Justice regarding the compatibility of the latter with the freedoms of movement guaranteed by Union law, as well as the conformity of such a system of judicial control with Union law”, explains the EU Court of Justice.

“According to the Luxembourg judges “First, the Court finds that a sanction prohibiting the pursuit of a professional activity in all Member States affects the freedom of movement of the managers concerned. However, such a limitation may be justified if it pursues a legitimate objective of general interest and if it is proportionate to that objective. It is up to the national judge to verify that these requirements are satisfied, given that the first appears to be, taking into account the importance of respecting the financial and accounting rules of football clubs in guaranteeing the regularity of sporting competitions. As regards compliance with the principle of proportionality, the national judge must ensure not only that the temporary bans on carrying out a professional activity envisaged by the FIGC are part of a coherent and complete regime aimed at eliminating illicit behavior and preventing any recurrence, but also that the determination of such sanctions is governed by transparent, objective and non-discriminatory criteria”.

“Secondly, individuals must have an effective judicial remedy against acts detrimental to their recognized freedoms by Union law, therefore, in particular, against those who impose such sanctions. For Member State law to comply with this obligation, it must, first of all, allow individuals to bring proceedings before a judge who has the power to annul such sanctions and, if necessary, to order provisional measures. Furthermore, Member States must guarantee the independence of this judgein particular with respect to any external pressure that may be exerted by the sports organizations concerned. It is also essential that the existence, composition and organization of that judge be pre-established by law. Finally, the judge in question must offer the parties the required procedural guarantees, in particular respect for the rights of the defense and the adversarial principle, and exercise effective judicial control over the documents submitted to him. By contrast, EU law does not impose a double level of jurisdiction: the existence of a judicial body that guarantees effective access to justice is sufficient. It is up to the national judge to verify that all these conditions are satisfied in the specific case by the Italian sports judges, at least by the one who decides in last instance”, concludes the Court.