FIGC and CONI: The CJEU Clarifies Effective Judicial Protection in Sports Justice
By Dr Estelle Ivanova, Attorney at Law, Paris, France
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has delivered another landmark ruling shaping the future of sports governance.
In its ruling of 16 July 2026 in the joined cases FIGC and CONI (C-424/24 and C-425/24) (the Case), the CJEU clarified the conditions under which national systems of sports justice are compatible with European Union (EU) law.
The ruling addresses both the compatibility of disciplinary sanctions imposed by sports associations with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty and the requirements of effective judicial protection governing judicial review of those sanctions. In doing so, the CJEU further defined the limits of sporting autonomy where disciplinary measures affect rights protected under EU law.
Background
The Case arose from disciplinary proceedings brought against two former directors of Juventus Football Club SpA, who were sanctioned by the Federal Court of Appeal at the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) for having made or approved false financial and accounting statements. The sanctions consisted of 24-month prohibitions on carrying on professional activities within the FIGC and were subsequently extended worldwide by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
Following the dismissal of their appeal by the Sports Guarantee Board at the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI), the directors brought an action before the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio, seeking the annulment of the disciplinary sanctions. Under the applicable Italian legislation, that Italian Court could, where a disciplinary sanction was found to be unlawful, award compensation but lacked the power to suspend or annul the sanction.
In those circumstances, the Italian Court decided to stay the proceedings and refer several questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling concerning the compatibility of that system with Articles 45 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (guaranteeing, respectively, the free movement of workers and the freedom to provide services within the internal market); the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU (requiring Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU law); and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (enshrining the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial).
Key Rulings of the CJEU
The CJEU first recalled that national and international sports associations are bound by the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Articles 45 and 56 TFEU when adopting rules governing paid work or the provision of services. This applies not only to professional and semi-professional players but also to other persons carrying out economic activities linked to sport, including club directors. The CJEU emphasised that the legal autonomy of sports associations, whether recognised under public or private law, does not exempt them from compliance with EU law.
The CJEU further held that disciplinary rules adopted by sports associations are not, in themselves, contrary to Articles 45 and 56 TFEU. However, disciplinary sanctions liable to restrict the free movement of workers or the freedom to provide services must pursue a legitimate objective in the public interest, such as ensuring the proper conduct of sporting competitions, and comply with the principle of proportionality. In particular, the determination, on a case-by-case basis, of individual sanctions must be based on transparent, objective and non-discriminatory criteria, allowing account to be taken of all the relevant circumstances, including the nature, duration and gravity of the infringement. The exercise of the discretion entrusted to the competent body must itself remain amenable to effective judicial review by a national court.
Turning to the requirements of effective judicial protection, the CJEU held that disciplinary sanctions must be amenable to effective judicial review. Where the final-instance body within the national sports justice system does not satisfy the cumulative requirements for classification as a "court or tribunal" under EU law, national courts must be able to carry out a full review of the sanction, including the conditions for its imposition, the reasons for it and its determination under EU law. Such review must also include the power to order interim measures and, where appropriate, to bring the effects of an unlawful sanction to an end. Accordingly, the mere possibility of obtaining financial compensation is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Broader Impact on Sports Governance
The CJEU ruling in the Case sits alongside European Superleague, ISU and Diarra in shaping the EU legal framework governing sports regulation. Taken together, these decisions confirm that sporting autonomy is not absolute. Sports governing bodies remain free to regulate their competitions and enforce their disciplinary rules, but the exercise of those powers remains subject to EU law. More specifically, the Case provides important clarification on the relationship between sports justice and the requirements of effective judicial protection under EU law.
From a practical perspective, the Case provides important guidance for Member States, sports governing bodies and individuals subject to sports disciplinary proceedings.
Member States, whose legal systems limit the scope of judicial review of sports disciplinary sanctions, may need to reconsider their procedural frameworks in the light of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Likewise, sports governing bodies, relying on autonomous systems of sports justice, should review whether their final-instance adjudicatory bodies satisfy the requirements of a "court or tribunal" under EU law. Failing that, national courts must be able to exercise full judicial review, including the power to grant interim measures, annul unlawful sanctions and bring infringements of EU law to an end.
In that way, the Case strengthens the procedural safeguards available to individuals where sports disciplinary sanctions affect rights protected under EU law.
Dr Estelle Ivanova may be contacted by e-mail at ‘
