Kolpak decision
As Kolpak ruling , the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-438/00 German Handball Federation e. V. / Maros Kolpak dated May 8, 2003 . The then Slovak handball - goalkeeper Maroš Kolpak reached in the proceedings that the German Handball Federation DHB had to issue him an unrestricted player's passport and he was no longer of two A-license player places his former club in the 2nd handball Bundesliga, a TSV Baden Östringen had to occupy.
Decision and consequences
In the decision, the ECJ declared further parts of the better-known Bosman decision to be applicable to athletes from countries that have entered into a certain type of association agreement with the European Union, following the 1998 Balog ruling . As Slovakia joined the EU shortly after the judgment, the decision regarding the agreement with it is out of date. For athletes from the so-called 79 ACP countries , however, it is still of great importance, through the decision that favored it, numerous rugby players from the Pacific island nations and South Africa, as well as Caribbean cricketers , who had previously been excluded by foreign restrictions, came to the British professional leagues. After the decision, these are sometimes also referred to as Kolpaks in official regulations .
The decision is considered to be a very important one in European sports labor law ; the then FIFA Secretary General and former FIFA President Sepp Blatter attested the case “an explosive force ten times that of the Bosman case”.
The Simutenkov decision that followed in 2005 confirmed the applicability of the ban on discrimination for nationals of states that have concluded association agreements with the EU if they already have a work permit, using Russia as an example and also with regard to third countries that are not candidate countries for the Community were. The ECJ also expressly confirmed the application for the economically most important sport in Europe, football .
Facts and procedural history
In 1997, Kolpak had been contracted as a goalkeeper by the then German second division handball team Baden Östringen for three years - later extended to six years before the decision was made - the DHB issued him with a player pass with the special note "A" because of his Slovak nationality . According to the statutes of the DHB at that time, there was a limit of two "A" note players for second division clubs; these were essentially intended for all players from countries that did not belong to the European Economic Area. Kolpak and his club applied for an unrestricted player ID with reference to the non-discrimination anchored in the association agreement between the then EC and his home country. When this was refused, the association and Kolpak sued - in addition to an unsuccessful application for temporary legal protection - before the Dortmund Regional Court for the grant. For procedural reasons, the association's action was rejected as inadmissible, but Kolpak prevailed in the first instance. The Hamm Higher Regional Court, as the competent second instance, submitted the matter to the ECJ on appeal by the DHB 2000.
The relevant provisions of the Agreement between the Communities and Slovakia were as follows:
"Article 38 of the Association Agreement - Slovakia, which forms part of Title IV, Chapter I," Free movement of workers ", provides in paragraph 1:
'(1) Subject to the conditions and modalities applicable in each Member State
- Slovakian workers who are legally employed in the territory of a Member State are granted treatment that does not discriminate against their own nationals in terms of working conditions, remuneration or dismissal based on nationality;
- the spouses and children legally resident in the territory of a Member State of a worker legally employed there have access to the labor market of that Member State during the period of validity of the worker's work permit; Exceptions are seasonal workers and workers who come under bilateral agreements within the meaning of Article 42, unless these agreements provide otherwise. '
Article 42 of the Communities-Slovakia Association Agreement, which belongs to the same chapter, provides:
'(1) Taking into account the labor market situation in the Member State and subject to its legislation and compliance with its provisions on worker mobility
- The existing facilities for access to employment for workers of the Slovak Republic, which the Member States grant under bilateral agreements, should be maintained and improved where possible;
- the other Member States will consider favorably the possible conclusion of similar agreements.
2. The Association Council shall examine the granting of further improvements, including facilitation of access to vocational training, in accordance with the laws and procedures in force in the Member States and taking into account the labor market situation in the Member States and in the Community. '
Article 59 of the Communities-Slovakia Association Agreement, which forms part of Chapter IV of Title IV “General Provisions”, provides in paragraph 1:
For the purposes of Title VI of this Agreement, no provision of this Agreement shall prevent the Contracting Parties from applying their laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to entry and residence, employment, conditions of employment, the establishment of natural persons and the provision of services, unless they do so in a Doing ways that nullify or diminish the benefits a Contracting Party derives from a treaty provision. ... '"
Individual evidence
- ↑ Meinhard Grodde: The influence of European law on the freedom of contract of autonomous sports associations in Germany - balance between national constitutional law and European freedom of movement . LIT Verlag, Berlin et al. 2007, ISBN 978-3-8258-0271-4 , p. 269 ff .
- ↑ a b Bernhard Schmeilzl: Foreigner clauses of the sports associations continue to crumble - athletes from EU association states are also fully entitled to play. (19 kB) (No longer available online.) Archived from the original on September 1, 2004 ; accessed on March 14, 2010 (pdf). Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ↑ Quoted from Grodde, p. 271.
- ^ Judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-265/03 Igor Simutenkov v Ministerio de Educación y Cultura and Real Federación Española de Fútbol of April 12, 2005 .
- ^ Frank Hendrickx: "The Simutenkov Case: Russian players are equal to European Union players". In: The International Sports Law Journal 2005 No. 3, pp. 13f [1] .
- ↑ There is a relevant arbitration agreement between the DHB and its clubs .
- ^ Judgment of the Court of Justice (fifth chamber) of May 8, 2003. - Deutscher Handballbund eV v Maros Kolpak. , accessed March 14, 2010
