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

Chapter
Part of the ASSER International Sports Law Series book 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.

Keywords

Advocate General Club Football National Team World Championship Collective Regulator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Beloff M et al (1999) Sports law. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  3. Engelbrecht G (2010) Discrimination against EU Nationals in amateur sports. Int Sports Law J 1–2:105–106Google Scholar
  4. European Commission (2007) White paper on sport, COM(2007) 391 finalGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission (2011) Developing the European dimension in sport, COM(2011) 12 finalGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Miettinen S (2006) The independent European sports review: a critical overview. Int Sports Law J 3–4:57–62Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. O’Neill M (1996) The politics of European integration. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Parrish R, Miettinen S (2008) The sporting exception in European Union law. TMC Asser Press, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. Van den Bogaert S (2005) Practical regulation of the mobility of sportsmen in the EU post Bosman. Kluwer International Law, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  13. Wathelet M (2007) Sport governance and EU legal order: present and future. Int Sports Law J 3–4:3–12Google Scholar
  14. 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 48–73Google Scholar
  15. Weatherill S (2007b) European sports law: collected papers. TMC Asser Press, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Law and CriminologyCentre for Sports Law Research, Edge Hill UniversityLancashire UK

Personalised recommendations