В продолжение темы по делу Bosman в настоящей подборке представляются материалы по правовому регулированию отношений в таком виде спорта, как футбол.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judgement of the General Court of the EU in the case FIFA v Commission (T-385/07) on freedom of movement for persons, UEFA v Commission (T-55/08) and FIFA v Commission (T-68/08) on free movment of services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 17 February 2011, Nicholas James Forwood, Judge at the General Court of the EU, pronounced the judgment in the case FIFA v Commission (T-385/07) on freedom of movement for persons, UEFA v Commission (T-55/08) and FIFA v Commission (T-68/08) on free movement of services. The General Court of the EU decided that a Member State may, in certain circumstances, prohibit the exclusive broadcast of all World Cup and EURO football matches on pay television, in order to allow the general public to follow those events on free television. Indeed when those competitions are, in their entirety, of major importance for society, the restriction on freedom to provide services is justified by the right to information and by the need to ensure wide public access to television broadcasts of those events. |
|
|
|
Only the original language version is authentic and it prevails in the event of its differing from the translated versions. |
|
|
|
10:00:00 Title 10:00:05 Exterior view of the Court of Justice of the EU in Luxembourg 10:00:11 General atmosphere prior the hearing 10:00:20 Arrival of the Judges at the General Court of the EU 10:00:33 Soundbite by Nicholas James Forwood, Judge at the General Court of the EU (in ENGLISH) reading the judgments in the case FIFA v Commission (T-385/07) on freedom of movement for persons, UEFA v Commission (T-55/08) and FIFA v Commission (T-68/08) on free movment of services 10:02:28 Cutaways of the Judges (2 shots) 10:02:39 END |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This material is offered free of charge for EU-related information and education purposes. For any other use, prior clearance must be obtained from the Central Audiovisual Library of the European Commission. In no case may this material be sold or rented. NB: Pictures containing buildings and artworks may only be used to meet the needs of current news coverage. Credit : © European Union, 2011 |
|
Judgement of the Court of Justice of the EU in the cases Football Association Premier League e.a. and Murphy (C-403/08 and C-429/08) on freedom to provide service
On 3 February 2011, Eleanor Sharpston, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the EU, pronounced her judgment in the cases Football Association Premier League e.a. and Murphy (C-403/08 and C-429/08) on freedom to provide service. The European Court of Justice assessed that in the view of Advocate General Kokott, territorial exclusivity agreements relating to the transmission of football matches are contrary to European Union law. Indeed European Union law does not make it possible to prohibit the live transmission of Premier League football matches in pubs by means of foreign decoder cards.
Judgement of the Court of Justice of the EU in the case Olympique Lyonnais (C-325/08) on Freedom of Movement for persons
On 16 March 2010, Vassilios Skouris, President of the Court of Justice of the EU ruled, in the case C-325/08 Olympique Lyonnais SASP v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle United FC, that European football clubs may seek compensation for the training of young players whom they have trained where those players wish to sign their first professional contract with a club in another EU Member State. In a statement, the court said that the amount of that compensation is to be determined by taking account of the costs borne by the clubs in training both future professional players and those who will never play professionally. In 1997, Olivier Bernard signed a "joueur espoir" contract with Olympique Lyonnais for three seasons. Before that contract was due to expire, Olympique Lyonnais offered him a professional contract for one year. Bernard refused to sign that contract and signed a professional contract with Newcastle United FC, an English football club. Olympique Lyonnais sued Bernard, seeking an award of damages against him and Newcastle United of € 53 357.16, equivalent to the salary which he would have received over one year if he had signed the contract offered by Olympique Lyonnais.
Judgment in the case C-206/01 Arsenal Football Club/Matthew Reed on approximation of laws concerning trade marks
Arsenal, a football club in the English Premier League, also nicknamed 'the Gunners', has for a long time been associated with two devices, the shield device and the cannon device. Since 1989, Arsenal has registered the word trade marks 'Arsenal' and 'Gunners' and the shield and cannon devices for a class of products comprising articles of outer clothing, articles of sports clothing and footwear. Arsenal designs and supplies its own products or has them made and supplied by its network of approved resellers. For 31 years Matthew Reed has sold football souvenirs and memorabilia, almost all marked with one or more Arsenal emblems. Matthew Reed, who owns several stalls located outside the grounds of Highbury, Arsenal's stadium, was able to obtain from KT Sports, licensed by Arsenal to sell its products to vendors around Highbury, only very small quantities of official Arsenal products. In 1991 and 1995 Arsenal had unofficial articles of Matthew Reed's confiscated. Arsenal considered that by selling the unofficial scarves Matthew Reed had both committed 'passing off'1 and infringed its trade marks. It therefore brought proceedings against him in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division.The High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, decided to refer to the Court of Justice of the EC for a preliminary ruling on the question whether or not non-trade mark use can constitute infringement of registered trade mark rights.
Judgement in the case C-218/00 Bacardi/Martini and Cellier des Dauphins on freedom to provide services
Bacardi-Martini SAS and Cellier des Dauphins are companies governed by French law carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing alcoholic beverages. Newcastle United Football Club Ltd ('Newcastle') is a limited company governed by English law; it owns and manages a football club and a football ground. Dorna Marketing (UK) Ltd was responsible for selling and displaying advertising around the touchline of each of the clubs' pitches for each home match played by the clubs' first teams. Dorna sold advertising time to Bacardi-Martini and Cellier des Dauphins on its revolving electronic display system during a match between Newcastle and Metz, a French football club, to be played on 3 December 1996 in the third round of the UEFA Cup. That match was to be televised live in the United Kingdom and in France. The advertisments which were to be displayed during the match complied with the requirements of English law. Shortly before the start of the match, Newcastle became aware that Dorna had sold advertising space to Bacardi-Martini and Cellier des Dauphins with the aim of displaying adverts for alcoholic beverages during the match. Newcastle therefore instructed Dorna that, as the match was to be broadcast by a French television channel, the French regulations restricting the advertising of alcoholic beverages (Loi Evin) would be applicable and that Dorna must therefore remove the claimants' advertisements from its advertising hoardings in order to comply with those regulations. As the advertisements in question could not be removed from the rotating hoardings before the match began, the display system was programmed in such a way that those advertisements appeared for only 1 to 2 second intervals during the match. The match was broadcast live on the French television Canal+. On 23 July 1998, Bacardi-Martini and Cellier des Dauphins commenced proceedings against Dorna and Newcastle in the High Court (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The claims against Dorna were withdrawn.The High Court referred the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities:Are the Loi Evin provisions contrary to the principle of freedom of services in so far as they prevent or restrict (a) the advertising of alcoholic drinks at sporting events taking place in Member States other than France when the events are to be televised in France and (b) the broadcasting in France of sporting events taking place in other Member States at which there is advertising of alcoholic beverages.
Free movement of footballers
Free movement of footballers: a review from the Bosman Hearing at the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, 20/06/95 to the meeting of 05/03/01, when the Mario Monti, Member of the European Commission in charge of Competition, Viviane Reding, Member of the European Commission in charge of Education and Culture, Anna Diamantopoulou, Member of the European Commission in charge of Employment and Social Affairs, Joseph Blatter, President of FIFA and Lennart Johansson, President of UEFA, finalised their discussions on revised FIFA Regulations on international football transfers.
Тамара Шашихина11 марта 2011
Комментарии
Показать все комментарии