CJEU Case C-600/23 / Judgment

Royal Football Club Seraing v Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Others
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Type
Decision
Decision date
01/08/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2025:617

Харта на основните права на Европейския съюз

  • CJEU Case C-600/23 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 19(1) TEU – Obligation of Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to an effective remedy – Possibility of recourse to arbitration – Arbitration between individuals – Imposed arbitration – Decision of a body of an international sports federation imposing a sanction – Award by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld by a decision of a court of a third State – Legal remedy against the arbitral award – National legislation conferring on that arbitral award the authority of res judicata between the parties and probative value vis-à-vis third parties – Powers and obligations of the national courts before which that arbitral award is relied on – Effective review of the consistency of such an arbitral award with the principles and provisions falling under EU public policy.

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

    The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

    must be interpreted as precluding:

    - the authority of res judicata from being conferred within the territory of a Member State on an award made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), in the relations between the parties to the dispute in the context of which that award was made, where that dispute is linked to the pursuit of a sport as an economic activity within the territory of the European Union and the consistency of that award with the principles and provisions of EU law which form part of EU public policy has not first been subject to effective review by a court or tribunal of that Member State that is authorised to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling;

    - probative value from being conferred, as a consequence of that authority of res judicata, on such an award within the territory of that Member State, in the relations between the parties to that dispute and third parties.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    70. That is why that right, which stems from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, is also guaranteed to individuals, at EU level, under the conditions laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter; Article 47 of the Charter must be duly taken into consideration for the purpose of interpreting the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 66; of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, C‑64/16, EU:C:2018:117, paragraph 35; and of 2 March 2021, A.B. and Others (Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court – Actions), C‑824/18, EU:C:2021:153, paragraph 143).

    71. Recognition of the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, in a given case, presupposes that the person invoking that right is relying on rights or freedoms guaranteed by EU law (judgments of 22 February 2022, RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court), C‑430/21, EU:C:2022:99, paragraph 34, and of 29 July 2024, protectus, C‑185/23, EU:C:2024:657, paragraph 71). That is the case in the dispute in the main proceedings, since, as the referring court points out, RFC Seraing is relying on rights and freedoms which it derives from Articles 45, 56, 63, 101 and 102 TFEU.

    72. That right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter corresponds to the obligation imposed on the Member States, in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law (judgments of 6 October 2020, État luxembourgeois (Right to bring an action against a request for information in tax matters), C‑245/19 and C‑246/19, EU:C:2020:795, paragraph 47, and of 1 August 2022, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Refusal to take charge of an Egyptian unaccompanied minor), C‑19/21, EU:C:2022:605, paragraph 36).

    73. Where Article 47 of the Charter helps to ensure respect for the right to effective judicial protection of any individual relying, in a given case, on a right or freedom which he or she derives from EU law, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU seeks to ensure that the system of legal remedies established by each Member State guarantees effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU law (judgment of 20 April 2021, Repubblika, C‑896/19, EU:C:2021:311, paragraph 52).

    ...

    75. As regards, second, the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, it requires, in particular, that those courts or tribunals be able to carry out an effective judicial review of the acts, measures or behaviour alleged, in the context of a given dispute, to have infringed the rights or freedoms which EU law confers on individuals. That requirement means, in principle, that those courts or tribunals must have the power to consider all the issues of fact and of law that are relevant for resolving that case (judgment of 6 October 2020, État luxembourgeois (Right to bring an action against a request for information in tax matters), C‑245/19 and C‑246/19, EU:C:2020:795, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    80. In that regard, as is clear from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights which relates to Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, in the light of which Article 47 of the Charter should be interpreted (judgment of 19 December 2019, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, C‑752/18, EU:C:2019:1114, paragraph 37), a distinction must be drawn between compulsory arbitration and voluntary arbitration. As regards voluntary arbitration, the European Court of Human Rights has held that parties to a contract are free voluntarily to waive certain rights secured by that convention, including the right to take to the national courts certain disagreements that may arise in the performance of that contract, provided that such a waiver is established in a free, lawful and unequivocal manner (ECtHR, 2 October 2018, Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, CE:ECHR:2018:1002JUD004057510, § 96).

    ...

    83. To that end, it is important to point out that, irrespective of the rules which may apply to the arbitration body having jurisdiction under such an arbitration mechanism, the awards made by that body must be amenable to judicial review such as to guarantee the effective judicial protection to which the individuals concerned are entitled, pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter, and which the Member States are required to ensure in the fields covered by EU law, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU.

    ...

    98. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the requirements which judicial review of awards made pursuant to such a mechanism must meet, in order to enable the national courts or tribunals having jurisdiction to guarantee individuals the effective judicial protection to which those individuals are entitled, under Article 47 of the Charter, and which the Member States are required to ensure in the fields covered by EU law, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU.

    ...

    115. The requirement to review consistency with EU public policy applies in order to enable the individuals concerned to exercise their right to an effective remedy and to enjoy the effective judicial protection that must be ensured to them, where appropriate of the court’s or tribunal’s own motion, in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, irrespective of the person seeking to rely, against such an individual, on an arbitral award such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

    ...

    118. Lastly, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, Article 47 of the Charter is sufficient in itself and does not need to be made more specific by provisions of EU or national law in order to confer on individuals a right which they may rely on as such (judgments of 17 April 2018, Egenberger, C‑414/16, EU:C:2018:257, paragraph 78; of 29 July 2019, Torubarov, C‑556/17, EU:C:2019:626, paragraph 56; and of 28 January 2025, ASG 2, C‑253/23, EU:C:2025:40, paragraph 89).

    ...

    122. Therefore, that obligation applies, in particular, where there are national provisions and rules conferring on such an arbitral award, first, the authority of res judicata in the relations between the parties, and second, probative value in the relations between the parties and third parties, without that arbitral award having first been subject to a review enabling a court or tribunal of the Member State concerned effectively to ascertain whether it is consistent with the principles and provisions which form part of EU public policy. It is important to point out, in that regard, that it is the very conferral of such an authority and, consequently, such a value on that arbitral award that, in such a context, is in breach of the requirement of effective judicial protection referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and in Article 47 of the Charter.

    ...

    125. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding:

    - the authority of res judicata from being conferred within the territory of a Member State on an award made by the CAS, in the relations between the parties to the dispute in the context of which that award was made, where that dispute is linked to the pursuit of a sport as an economic activity within the territory of the European Union and the consistency of that award with the principles and provisions of EU law which form part of EU public policy has not first been subject to effective review by a court or tribunal of that Member State that is authorised to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling;

    - probative value from being conferred, as a consequence of that authority of res judicata, on such an award within the territory of that Member State, in the relations between the parties to that dispute and third parties.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)