The EU General Court’s Ruling On Exclusive Arbitration Agreements In The ISU Case
On 16 December, the EU General Court rendered its long-awaited decision (the ISU Judgment) in the action brought by the International Skating Union (ISU) against the Decision of the European Commission of 7 December 2017 (the Commission Decision).
The Commission Decision ruled that the ISU’s “Eligibility Rules” infringed upon EU competition rules (Article 101 TFEU), to the extent that their goal was to prevent professional speed skaters from taking part in international events organized by third parties. In turn, such third parties were deprived of the athletes’ participation necessary to organize those competitions. The ISU Eligibility Rules also included arbitration rules that provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as the appeal body for internal disciplinary decisions. The arbitration rules were found by the Commission to “reinforce” such infringements through the hurdles imposed on athletes in obtaining effective judicial protection against potentially anti-competitive ineligibility decisions of the ISU. The EU Commission subsequently ordered the ISU to put an end to the infringement through the amendment of its Eligibility Rules, which included the arbitration rules (subject to a periodic penalty payment).
The ISU appealed the Commission Decision to the EU General Court. While generally upholding the Commission Decision, the General Court annulled the part relating to the ISU arbitration rules in favor of the CAS. The decisions of the General Court are not final but subject to appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice).
This article does not discuss the part of the ISU Judgment that held that the ISU Eligibility Rules are incompatible with EU competition rules, which will be addressed in a separate article. Instead, it focuses solely on examining the decision as it relates to the ISU’s arbitration rules, examining:
- Background – the Eligibility Rules and the Icederby skating event
- The EU Commission Decision
- The EU General Court’s Judgement
- Considerations For Sports Governing Bodies
More generally, the ISU Judgment shows an increasing tendency of the EU adjudication instances to determine the compatibility of the rules of Sports Governing Bodies (SGBs) with EU competition rules by scrutinizing their regulatory drafting and, subsequently, their overall governance structure.
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: Arbitration | Competition | Court of Arbitration for Sport | Dispute Resolution | European Commission | European General Court | European Union (EU) | International Skating Union (ISU) | Regulation
- The Legality of the Arbitration Agreements in favour of CAS (Pechstein) Part 1
- The dichotomy and future of sports arbitration - Compelled consent
- Why the International Skating Union was found in breach of EU competition law
- The right to a fair hearing in sports’ cases: lessons from the ECtHR’s decision in Mutu & Pechstein
- Riza v Turkey: European Court of Human Rights gives further guidance on establishing independent arbitral tribunals
Dr. Despina Mavromati is an attorney at the Swiss law firm BianchiSchwald and an arbitrator at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). She has extensive experience in international sports law and arbitration. She represents athletes, clubs and federations and advises on regulatory and sports governance matters, including the recognition and enforcement of awards and freezing of assets in Switzerland. Despina has acted as counsel, co-counsel, expert or arbitrator in numerous sports arbitrations, involving contractual, governance, doping-related and other disciplinary and ethics matters. Recognized as a Thought Leader by Who’s Who Legal in Switzerland every year since 2018, “Despina Mavromati is “brilliant and accomplished” and “an amazing lawyer with immense knowledge and expertise when it comes to disputes before the CAS” (Who’s Who Legal 2023).