{"id":288469,"date":"2025-12-03T18:03:12","date_gmt":"2025-12-03T17:03:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=288469"},"modified":"2026-02-05T00:58:46","modified_gmt":"2026-02-04T23:58:46","slug":"cjeu-challenges-fifas-arbitration-shield-implications-for-cas-awards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2025\/12\/03\/cjeu-challenges-fifas-arbitration-shield-implications-for-cas-awards\/","title":{"rendered":"CJEU Challenges FIFA\u2019s Arbitration Shield: Implications for CAS Awards"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\"><strong>CJEU,&nbsp; Case C\u2011600\/23 &#8211; <em>RFC Seraing SA v FIFA<\/em><\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:<br><strong>Padraic Mc Cafferty<\/strong>, Dual-qualified Solicitor in England &amp; Wales and Ireland, and Barrister at Lincoln\u2019s Inn<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/paris-baby-arbitration\/posts\/?feedView=all\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Paris Baby Arbitration (&#8220;PBA&#8221;)<\/a> is building a strong community of future arbitration professionals linked to Paris and beyond. Partnering with\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Daily Jus<\/a>, PBA shares sharp, bilingual analyses and fresh perspectives on the developments shaping the arbitration field, making it more accessible to students and young practitioners worldwide.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tabs atbs-tabs-bc5d1af3 atbs-tabs-af9281c0 atbs-tabs-aa15e4c5 atbs-tabs-4e71e07f atbs-tabs-960ca043 atbs-tabs-ee00a60a atbs-tabs-cc044763 atbs-tabs-e5227453 atbs-tabs-28ee9d1e atbs-tabs-0f9baf1e atbs-tabs-089ca7bc atbs-tabs-d3e0c47d atbs-tabs-6f4e5034 atbs-tabs-edc4d811 atbs-tabs-9f79343d atbs-tabs-e29c0043 atbs-tabs-3388e41b atbs-tabs-eacf5739 atbs-tabs-1640bf1d atbs-tabs-f4af3a56 atbs-tabs-873c354e atbs-tabs-83bd85a4 atbs-tabs-62375cc4 atbs-tabs-5956dcf8\"><div class=\"tabs-container\"><div class=\"tabs-nav\"><ul class=\"tabs-titles\"><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"1\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">English<\/span><\/li><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"2\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">French<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/div><div class=\"tabs-content\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"1\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-bc5d1af3\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 01 August 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the \u201c<strong>CJEU<\/strong>\u201d) handed down a significant judgement relating to sports arbitration and specifically arbitral awards of the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-cas-court-of-arbitration-for-sport\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Court of Arbitration for Sport<\/a> (the \u201c<strong>CAS<\/strong>\u201d). This decision is being called the \u201c<em>Achmea of sports arbitration,<\/em>\u201d given the significance it may have on CAS awards having effect within the EU, since CAS awards are usually seated in Switzerland, i.e., a third country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The CJEU judgment was a request for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian <em>Cour de Cassation<\/em>. In essence, the CJEU was asked the following question: should the <em>res judicata <\/em>effect attaching to a CAS award be disregarded because the court that reviewed the award is seated in a third country and cannot make a preliminary reference to the CJEU, therefore depriving the applicant of judicial protection granted under EU Law?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the case at hand, the football club, RFC Seraing, entered into third party ownership agreements with Doyen Sports, a Maltese company.&nbsp; These agreements stipulated that Doyen Sports were entitled to a percentage of a football player\u2019s economic rights, i.e. a percentage of a future transfer fee. The concept of third party ownership in football is very similar to third party funding in arbitration, in that a third party \u2018invests\u2019 and thereafter is entitled to a share of a future sum (here, a transfer fee). However, third party ownership was banned by the F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Internationale de Football Association (\u201c<strong>FIFA<\/strong>\u201d) and accordingly, once FIFA became aware of the agreements in place between RFC Seraing and Doyen Sports, it imposed a transfer ban and a fine on the football club.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The football club exhausted all judicial remedies in Switzerland. First, at the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, then at an appeal to the FIFA Appeals Committee, as well as a further appeal to the CAS, and finally to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland. Simultaneously,there were concurrent proceedings in Belgium where the football club is based.&nbsp; However, the Brussels Commercial Court had initially refused jurisdiction, and that decision was appealed to the Brussels Court of Appeal. Once more, the football club lost and, as such, appealed to the Belgian <em>Cour de Cassation<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Before the Belgian courts, the football club alleged infringement of EU law pertaining to fundamental freedoms of the internal market, competition law, and judicial protection.&nbsp; The fundamental freedoms alleged to have been breached by the banning of third-party ownership were the free movement of services, the free movement of workers, and the free movement of capital.&nbsp; The alleged competition law breaches were based on Article 101 of the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-consolidated-version-of-the-treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-consolidated-version-2016-tuesday-7th-june-2016\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2016)<\/a> (\u201c<strong>TFEU<\/strong>\u201d), considering that an agreement between FIFA and the Union of European Football Associations (\u201c<strong>UEFA<\/strong>\u201d) constituted a restriction on competition. It was also based on Article 102 TFEU, considering that FIFA holds a dominant position in the market and that it was abusing that dominant position. For clarity, the CJEU did not examine whether the FIFA ban on third party ownership was in breach of EU law.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The fact that neither the CAS nor the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland have the ability to refer preliminary references to the CJEU was seen by the latter as having major implications for the judicial protection and for the application of EU law. Indeed, there is no mechanism for a CAS award involving EU public policy to be reviewed by an EU court capable of making a preliminary reference, which would ensure the uniform interpretation of EU law and maintain judicial dialogue between the CJEU and Member States\u2019 courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As such, given the nature of the case, the CJEU did not rule on the underlying dispute pending before the Belgian courts. Instead, the CJEU answered the questions referred to it by the Belgian <em>Cour de cassation<\/em>. In doing so, the CJEU held that Article 19 of the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-consolidated-version-of-the-treaty-on-european-union-treaty-on-european-union-consolidated-version-2016-tuesday-7th-june-2016\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Treaty on European Union (2016)<\/a> (\u201c<strong>TEU<\/strong>\u201d), regarding judicial protection, read together with Article 267 TFEU, regarding the preliminary reference procedure, and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, regarding the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, precludes the application of<em> res judicata<\/em> to CAS awards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This decision can be seen as yet another chapter in the collision of two legal orders, between international arbitration and EU law. The <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-achmea-b-v-formerly-eureko-b-v-v-the-slovak-republic-i-judgment-of-the-grand-chamber-of-the-european-court-of-justice-tuesday-6th-march-2018?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3Dachmea&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en&amp;contents%5B1%5D=fr&amp;contents%5B2%5D=es&amp;contents%5B3%5D=de\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Achmea <\/a><\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-achmea-b-v-formerly-eureko-b-v-v-the-slovak-republic-i-judgment-of-the-grand-chamber-of-the-european-court-of-justice-tuesday-6th-march-2018?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3Dachmea&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en&amp;contents%5B1%5D=fr&amp;contents%5B2%5D=es&amp;contents%5B3%5D=de\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">(<\/a>C-284\/16) and <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-energoalians-llc-v-republic-of-moldova-judgment-of-the-grand-chamber-of-the-cjeu-thursday-2nd-september-2021\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Komstroy <\/a><\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-energoalians-llc-v-republic-of-moldova-judgment-of-the-grand-chamber-of-the-cjeu-thursday-2nd-september-2021\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">(<\/a>C-741\/19) decisions rendered by the CJEU already established that intra-EU investment treaty arbitration is incompatible with EU law.\u00a0 Now, in sports arbitration, this decision, combined with the <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-international-skating-union-isu-v-european-commission-judgment-of-the-general-court-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-grand-chamber-c-124-21-p-thursday-21st-december-2023?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DC-124%2F21%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en&amp;contents%5B1%5D=fr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">International Skating Union<\/a> <\/em>(C-124\/21 P), illustrates the friction between CAS arbitration and EU law, as the EU seeks to maintain the primacy of its law.\u00a0 It is noteworthy that since the <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-european-superleague-company-sl-v-federation-internationale-de-football-association-fifa-and-union-of-european-football-associations-uefa-judgment-of-the-general-court-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-grand-chamber-c-333-2-thursday-21st-december-2023#decision_59481?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DEuropean%2BSuper%2BLeague%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">European Super League<\/a> <\/em>(C-333\/21) and <em>International Skating Union<\/em> decisions, UEFA has amended its Authorisation Rules, allowing an alternative seat in Dublin, Ireland, so that the arbitration can be held within the EU. In terms of the football industry, this judgment may rank alongside <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-union-royale-belge-des-societes-de-football-association-asbl-v-jean-marc-bosman-royal-club-liegois-sa-v-jean-marc-bosman-sa-deconomie-mixte-sportive-de-lunion-sportive-du-littoral-de-dunkerque-union-royale-belge-des-societes-de-football-association-asbl-and-union-des-associations-europeennes-de-football-uefa-union-des-associations-europeennes-de-football-uefa-v-jean-marc-bosman-judgment-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-communities-c-415-93-friday-15th-december-1995\">Bosman<\/a> <\/em>(C-415\/93), the <em>European Super League,<\/em> and <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-federation-internationale-de-football-association-fifa-v-bz-judgment-of-the-general-court-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-second-chamber-c-650-22-friday-4th-october-2024#decision_68892\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Diarra<\/a> <\/em>(C\u2011650\/22) as the most significant court decisions affecting the industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Looking ahead, one could imagine the emergence of two \u201ccategories\u201d of CAS awards: those seated within the EU, which would have access to EU courts for matters touching on EU public policy, and those seated outside it. Such a dual system would inevitably mean that EU-based parties enjoy enhanced judicial protection compared to non-EU parties, creating an uneven playing field and raising serious concerns regarding legal certainty and the finality of arbitral awards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\">T<em>his article was originally published in the Biberon newsletter on<em> Wednesday December 4, 2025,<\/em> with thanks to Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/BIBERON-81-ENG.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Read It<\/strong> <strong>Here<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Padraic Mc Cafferty<\/strong> is a common law arbitration lawyer based in Paris completing a Double LL.M. with Queen Mary University of London and Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on Sorbonne. He is an Irish qualified solicitor, and on the Roll of Solicitors for England &amp; Wales and Northern Ireland.&nbsp; He has also been Called to the Bar of England and Wales (Lincoln&#8217;s Inn).&nbsp; He has worked with the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-hkiac-hong-kong-international-arbitration-centre\">HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre)<\/a> and the Court of Justice of the European Union. He is a Member of the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-ciarb-the-chartered-institute-of-arbitrators\">CIArb (Chartered Institute of Arbitrators)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"2\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-bc5d1af3\">\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>La CJUE remet en cause le bouclier arbitral de la FIFA : quelles implications pour les sentences du TAS ?<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>CJEU, Case C\u2011600\/23 &#8211; <em>RFC Seraing SA v FIFA<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le 1<sup>er<\/sup> ao\u00fbt 2025, la Cour de justice de l&#8217;Union europ\u00e9enne (la \u00ab <strong>CJUE<\/strong> \u00bb) a rendu un arr\u00eat important concernant l&#8217;arbitrage du sport et plus particuli\u00e8rement les sentences arbitrales rendues par le <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-cas-court-of-arbitration-for-sport\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Tribunal arbitral du sport<\/a> (le \u00ab <strong>TAS<\/strong> \u00bb). Cette d\u00e9cision est qualifi\u00e9e d\u2019 \u00ab <em>Achmea de l&#8217;arbitrage sportif<\/em> \u00bb en raison de l&#8217;importance qu&#8217;elle pourrait avoir sur les sentences du TAS ayant effet au sein de l&#8217;UE alors que les sentences du TAS sont rendues en Suisse, c&#8217;est-\u00e0-dire dans un pays tiers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">L&#8217;arr\u00eat de la CJUE faisait suite \u00e0 une demande de d\u00e9cision pr\u00e9judicielle de la Cour de cassation belge. En substance, la CJUE a \u00e9t\u00e9 saisie de la question suivante : l&#8217;effet de chose jug\u00e9e attach\u00e9 \u00e0 une sentence du TAS doit-il \u00eatre \u00e9cart\u00e9 au motif que la juridiction qui a r\u00e9-examin\u00e9 la sentence est situ\u00e9e dans un pays tiers et ne peut saisir la CJUE d&#8217;une question pr\u00e9judicielle, privant ainsi le requ\u00e9rant de la protection juridictionnelle garantie par le droit de l\u2019UE ?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En l&#8217;esp\u00e8ce, le club de football RFC Seraing a conclu, par l&#8217;interm\u00e9diaire d&#8217;un tiers, des accords de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 avec Doyen Sports. Ces accords stipulaient que Doyen Sports avait droit \u00e0 un pourcentage des droits \u00e9conomiques des joueurs de football, correspondant \u00e0 un pourcentage des futurs frais de transfert. Le concept de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 par un tiers dans le football est tr\u00e8s similaire au financement de l\u2019arbitrage par les tiers, dans le sens o\u00f9 un tiers \u00ab investit \u00bb et a ensuite droit \u00e0 une part d&#8217;une somme future (ici, des frais de transfert). Cependant, la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 par un tiers a \u00e9t\u00e9 interdite par la F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Internationale de Football Association (\u00ab&nbsp;<strong>FIFA<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb) et, d\u00e8s lors que celle-ci a eu connaissance des accords conclus entre le RFC Seraing et Doyen Sports, elle a sanctionn\u00e9 le club de football en lui imposant une interdiction de transfert et une amende.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le club de football a ainsi \u00e9puis\u00e9 toutes les voies de recours en Suisse. Il a d&#8217;abord saisi la Commission de Discipline de la FIFA, puis a interjet\u00e9 appel devant la Commission d&#8217;Appel de la FIFA, avant de saisir le TAS et, enfin, le Tribunal f\u00e9d\u00e9ral suisse. De plus, une proc\u00e9dure parall\u00e8le a \u00e9t\u00e9 engag\u00e9e en Belgique, o\u00f9 le club de football est bas\u00e9. Au d\u00e9part, le Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles a refus\u00e9 de se d\u00e9clarer comp\u00e9tent, et cette d\u00e9cision a \u00e9t\u00e9 port\u00e9e en appel devant la Cour d&#8217;appel de Bruxelles. Une fois de plus, le club de football a perdu et a fait appel devant la Cour de cassation belge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Devant les tribunaux belges, le club de football invoquait une violation du droit europ\u00e9en relatif aux libert\u00e9s fondamentales du march\u00e9 int\u00e9rieur, du droit de la concurrence et de la protection judiciaire.&nbsp; Les libert\u00e9s fondamentales qui auraient \u00e9t\u00e9 viol\u00e9es par l&#8217;interdiction de la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 par des tiers \u00e9taient la libre circulation des services, la libre circulation des travailleurs et la libre circulation des capitaux.&nbsp; Les violations all\u00e9gu\u00e9es du droit de la concurrence concernaient l&#8217;article 101 du <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-consolidated-version-of-the-treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-consolidated-version-2016-tuesday-7th-june-2016\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">trait\u00e9 sur le fonctionnement de l&#8217;Union europ\u00e9enne (2016)<\/a> (\u00ab&nbsp;<strong>TFUE<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb), selon lequel un accord entre la FIFA et la Union des associations europ\u00e9ennes de football (\u00ab&nbsp;<strong>UEFA&nbsp;<\/strong>\u00bb)&nbsp;constituait une restriction de la concurrence, et l&#8217;article 102 du TFUE, selon lequel la FIFA occupe une position dominante sur le march\u00e9 (de la r\u00e9glementation des transferts de joueurs) et abuse de cette position dominante. Pour plus de clart\u00e9, la CJUE n&#8217;a pas examin\u00e9 si l&#8217;interdiction par la FIFA de la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 par des tiers constituait ou non une violation du droit de l&#8217;Union europ\u00e9enne.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le fait que ni le TAS ni le Tribunal f\u00e9d\u00e9ral suisse n&#8217;aient la possibilit\u00e9 de saisir la CJUE d&#8217;une question pr\u00e9judicielle a \u00e9t\u00e9 consid\u00e9r\u00e9 par la CJUE comme ayant des implications majeures pour la protection judiciaire et l&#8217;application du droit de l&#8217;Union europ\u00e9enne. Il n&#8217;est pas possible qu&#8217;une d\u00e9cision du TAS relative \u00e0 l&#8217;ordre public de l&#8217;Union europ\u00e9enne ne soit pas soumise \u00e0 l&#8217;examen d&#8217;une juridiction de l&#8217;Union europ\u00e9enne qui pourrait saisir la CJUE d&#8217;une question pr\u00e9judicielle afin de garantir une interpr\u00e9tation uniforme du droit de l&#8217;Union europ\u00e9enne et un dialogue judiciaire entre la CJUE et les juridictions des \u00c9tats membres.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ainsi, compte tenu de la nature de l&#8217;affaire, la CJUE ne statue pas elle-m\u00eame sur l&#8217;affaire port\u00e9e devant les tribunaux belges. La Cour, r\u00e9pondant aux questions pos\u00e9es par la Cour de cassation belge, a estim\u00e9 que l&#8217;article 19 du <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-consolidated-version-of-the-treaty-on-european-union-treaty-on-european-union-consolidated-version-2016-tuesday-7th-june-2016\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">trait\u00e9 sur l&#8217;Union europ\u00e9enne (2016)<\/a> (\u00ab&nbsp;<strong>TUE<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb) (protection juridictionnelle), lu en combinaison avec l&#8217;article 267 du TFUE (demande de d\u00e9cision pr\u00e9judicielle) et l&#8217;article 47 de la Charte de l&#8217;UE (droit \u00e0 un recours effectif et \u00e0 acc\u00e9der \u00e0 un tribunal impartial), s&#8217;oppose \u00e0 l&#8217;application de la chose jug\u00e9e aux sentences du TAS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cette d\u00e9cision peut \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme un nouveau chapitre du conflit entre deux ordres juridiques, l&#8217;arbitrage international et le droit europ\u00e9en. Les affaires <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-achmea-b-v-formerly-eureko-b-v-v-the-slovak-republic-i-judgment-of-the-grand-chamber-of-the-european-court-of-justice-tuesday-6th-march-2018?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3Dachmea&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en&amp;contents%5B1%5D=fr&amp;contents%5B2%5D=es&amp;contents%5B3%5D=de\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Achmea <\/a><\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-achmea-b-v-formerly-eureko-b-v-v-the-slovak-republic-i-judgment-of-the-grand-chamber-of-the-european-court-of-justice-tuesday-6th-march-2018?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3Dachmea&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en&amp;contents%5B1%5D=fr&amp;contents%5B2%5D=es&amp;contents%5B3%5D=de\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">(<\/a>C-284\/16)et <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-energoalians-llc-v-republic-of-moldova-judgment-of-the-grand-chamber-of-the-cjeu-thursday-2nd-september-2021\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Komstroy (<\/a><\/em>C-741\/19) ont \u00e9tabli que l&#8217;arbitrage intra-europ\u00e9en en mati\u00e8re d&#8217;investissements \u00e9tait incompatible avec le droit europ\u00e9en. Dans le domaine de l&#8217;arbitrage sportif, cette d\u00e9cision, combin\u00e9e \u00e0 celle de <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-international-skating-union-isu-v-european-commission-judgment-of-the-general-court-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-grand-chamber-c-124-21-p-thursday-21st-december-2023?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DC-124%2F21%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en&amp;contents%5B1%5D=fr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">International Skating Union<\/a> <\/em>(C-124\/21 P), illustre les tensions entre l&#8217;arbitrage du TAS et le droit europ\u00e9en, alors que l&#8217;UE cherche \u00e0 maintenir la primaut\u00e9 de son droit. Il convient de noter que depuis les d\u00e9cisions relatives \u00e0 la <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-european-superleague-company-sl-v-federation-internationale-de-football-association-fifa-and-union-of-european-football-associations-uefa-judgment-of-the-general-court-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-grand-chamber-c-333-2-thursday-21st-december-2023#decision_59481?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DEuropean%2BSuper%2BLeague%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Super Ligue europ\u00e9enne<\/a> <\/em>(C-333\/21) &nbsp;et \u00e0 <em>International Skating Union<\/em> (toutes deux li\u00e9es au droit de la concurrence et rendues le 21 d\u00e9cembre 2023), l&#8217;UEFA a modifi\u00e9 ses r\u00e8gles d&#8217;autorisation, autorisant un si\u00e8ge alternatif \u00e0 Dublin, en Irlande, afin de rester dans l&#8217;UE. En ce qui concerne le secteur du football, cet arr\u00eat pourrait \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9, au m\u00eame titre que les arr\u00eats <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-union-royale-belge-des-societes-de-football-association-asbl-v-jean-marc-bosman-royal-club-liegois-sa-v-jean-marc-bosman-sa-deconomie-mixte-sportive-de-lunion-sportive-du-littoral-de-dunkerque-union-royale-belge-des-societes-de-football-association-asbl-and-union-des-associations-europeennes-de-football-uefa-union-des-associations-europeennes-de-football-uefa-v-jean-marc-bosman-judgment-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-communities-c-415-93-friday-15th-december-1995\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Bosman<\/a> <\/em>(C\u2011415\/93), <em>Super Ligue europ\u00e9enne<\/em> et <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-federation-internationale-de-football-association-fifa-v-bz-judgment-of-the-general-court-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-second-chamber-c-650-22-friday-4th-october-2024#decision_68892\">Diarra<\/a> <\/em>(C\u2011650\/22), comme l&#8217;une des d\u00e9cisions judiciaires les plus importantes ayant une incidence sur ce secteur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dans le cadre d&#8217;un arbitrage devant le TAS, deux sortes de d\u00e9cisions pourraient \u00eatre rendues : l&#8217;une au titre de l&#8217;UE (avec recours aux tribunaux de l&#8217;UE pour les questions d&#8217;ordre public communautaire) et l&#8217;autre hors UE. L&#8217;argument serait \u00e9videmment que les parties de l&#8217;UE b\u00e9n\u00e9ficient alors d&#8217;une protection juridique plus importante que les parties hors UE. Ce dilemme cr\u00e9erait malheureusement un \u00ab terrain de jeu \u00bb in\u00e9gal, ainsi que des probl\u00e8mes de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 juridique et de caract\u00e8re d\u00e9finitif.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><em>Cet article a \u00e9t\u00e9 initialement publi\u00e9 dans la newsletter Biberon le mercredi 3 d\u00e9cembre, 2025, avec le soutien de Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect<\/em><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/BIBERON-81-FR.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Lire dans le Biberon<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Padraic Mc Cafferty<\/strong> is a common law arbitration lawyer based in Paris completing a Double LL.M. with Queen Mary University of London and Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on Sorbonne. He is an Irish qualified solicitor, and on the Roll of Solicitors for England &amp; Wales and Northern Ireland.&nbsp; He has also been Called to the Bar of England and Wales (Lincoln&#8217;s Inn).&nbsp; He has worked with the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-hkiac-hong-kong-international-arbitration-centre\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre)<\/a> and the Court of Justice of the European Union. He is a Member of the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-ciarb-the-chartered-institute-of-arbitrators\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">CIArb (Chartered Institute of Arbitrators)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>Les points de vue et les opinions exprim\u00e9s par les auteurs sont les leurs et ne refl\u00e8tent pas n\u00e9cessairement ceux de leurs organisations, de leurs employeurs ou de Daily Jus, Jus Mundi ou Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A landmark CJEU ruling questions the res judicata effect of CAS awards seated in Switzerland, reshaping the relationship between EU law and sports arbitration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":288091,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"subtitle":"","format":"standard","video":"","gallery":"","source_name":"","source_url":"","via_name":"","via_url":"","override_template":"0","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_share_counter":"0","show_view_counter":"0","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_author":"0","show_post_author_image":"0","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_category":"0","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_post_tag":"0","show_prev_next_post":"0","show_popup_post":"0","number_popup_post":"1","show_author_box":"0","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"override_image_size":"0","image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post":"0","trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post":"0","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","sponsored_post_name":"","sponsored_post_url":"","sponsored_post_logo_enable":"0","sponsored_post_logo":"","sponsored_post_desc":"","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"202","hide":""},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_title":"CJEU Challenges FIFA\u2019s Arbitration Shield: Implications for CAS Awards","fb_description":"A landmark CJEU ruling questions the res judicata effect of CAS awards seated in Switzerland, reshaping the relationship between EU law and sports arbitration.","fb_image":"288089","twitter_title":"CJEU Challenges FIFA\u2019s Arbitration Shield: Implications for CAS Awards","twitter_description":"A landmark CJEU ruling questions the res judicata effect of CAS awards seated in Switzerland, reshaping the relationship between EU law and sports arbitration.","twitter_image":"288089"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"0","type":"percentage","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[{"good_text":""}],"bad":[{"bad_text":""}],"score_override":"0","override_value":"","rating":[{"rating_text":"","rating_number":"10"}],"price":[{"shop":"","price":"","link":"","icon":""}],"jnews_override_counter":{"override_view_counter":"0","view_counter_number":"0","override_share_counter":"0","share_counter_number":"0","override_like_counter":"0","like_counter_number":"0","override_dislike_counter":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,285,167,195,208,188,276,202,181,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-288469","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-belgium","category-europe","category-industry","category-investor-state-arbitration","category-legal-insights","category-paris-baby-arbitration-pba","category-sports","category-switzerland","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288469","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=288469"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288469\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":289133,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288469\/revisions\/289133"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/288091"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=288469"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=288469"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=288469"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=288469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}