SPOTLIGHT #17: SPORTS ARBITRATION UNDER THE TEST OF EU LAW: TOWARDS ENHANCED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CASE AWARDS

27 October 2025

SPOTLIGHT #17: SPORTS ARBITRATION UNDER THE TEST OF EU LAW: TOWARDS ENHANCED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CASE AWARDS

At Lead up, we are committed to providing our clients with the most innovative conflict resolution solutions, tailored to their specific sectoral contexts. To do so, we must stay alert to recent developments in our clients’ industries and analyze these changes according to their needs. Each month, in the “Lead up Spotlight,” we will share with you – our colleagues, clients, and potential partners – our analysis of a recent development related to conflict resolution in a sector that matters to us and to our clients.

This month’s “Lead up Spotlight” focuses on the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered on August 1, 2025, in the case Royal Football Club Seraing v. FIFA et al. (Case C-600/23), which redefines the conditions for recognizing sports arbitration awards within the European Union.

1 – Case Facts

Royal Football Club Seraing (RFC Seraing), a Belgian football club, entered into two contracts in 2015 with Doyen Sports Investment Ltd, a Maltese company specializing in club financing. These contracts involved the partial transfer of the economic rights of several players in exchange for funding. These practices, known as third-party ownership (TPO), are prohibited by FIFA regulations.

FIFA initiated disciplinary proceedings against the club, resulting in a decision in September 2015 (a ban on registering players for four transfer windows and a fine of CHF 150,000). RFC Seraing challenged this decision before FIFA’s Appeals Committee, then before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the sanctions. The Swiss Federal Tribunal subsequently rejected the club’s appeal against the CAS award.

Meanwhile, RFC Seraing initiated proceedings before Belgian courts, challenging the legality of FIFA’s rules under EU law, particularly regarding freedom of movement and competition rules. The Brussels Court of Appeal rejected the claims, considering that the CAS award had res judicata effect and probative value.

The club filed a cassation appeal, leading the Belgian Court of Cassation to refer two preliminary questions to the CJEU regarding the compatibility with EU law of the automatic recognition of res judicata and probative value of an arbitral award rendered outside the EU, without effective judicial review by a court empowered to refer to the CJEU.

2 – The CJEU’s Decision

  • Court’s Ruling

The CJEU interprets Article 19(1), second paragraph of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), read in conjunction with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as opposing:

  • The conferral of res judicata effect to a CAS award within the territory of a Member State, in relations between the parties to the dispute, when the dispute is linked to the exercise of sport as an economic activity in the Union and the award’s compliance with the principles and provisions of EU public policy has not been previously and effectively reviewed by a national court empowered to refer to the CJEU;
  • The conferral of probative value to such an award in relations between the parties to the dispute and third parties.

 

  • -Court’s Reasoning

Judicial Protection and Imposed Arbitration

  • The CJEU recalls that Article 19(1) TEU requires Member States to ensure effective judicial protection in areas covered by EU law. This requirement is reinforced by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the preliminary ruling mechanism under Article 267 TFEU.
  • The CJEU distinguishes voluntary arbitration (freely consented to) from imposed arbitration, as in sports disputes governed by FIFA statutes.
  • Recourse to CAS is unilaterally imposed by FIFA, which limits access to a national court empowered to refer to the CJEU.

EU Public Policy and Judicial Review

  • The CJEU recalls that freedom of movement (Articles 45, 56, 63 TFEU) and competition rules (Articles 101, 102 TFEU) are part of the EU’s public policy.
  • Any arbitral award concerning these matters must be subject to effective judicial review, even incidentally.
  • National courts must verify the compliance of foreign arbitral awards with these principles before granting them binding legal effects.

Legal Effects of Arbitral Awards

  • The Court thus considers that an arbitral award rendered outside the EU (such as by CAS, based in Switzerland) cannot automatically have res judicata effect in a Member State without prior review.
  • National courts must refuse to confer binding authority or probative value to an arbitral award that has not been reviewed, unless its compliance with EU public policy is established.
  • This review is all the more necessary when arbitration is imposed and not freely consented to, as is often the case in professional sports.

3 – Analysis and Implications of the Judgment

  • This judgment requires Member States to ensure effective judicial review of arbitral awards rendered outside the EU before granting them binding legal effects.
  • National courts in the EU must be able to review the interpretation made by the arbitral tribunal of the principles and provisions forming part of EU public policy, the legal consequences attached to them, and the legal qualification of the facts in light of that interpretation.
  • Although the Court did not follow Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta, who recommended subjecting sports arbitration to full judicial review under EU law, it adopts a broad view of EU public policy, including the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, which were at issue in the dispute.
  • The judgment limits the automatic effect of CAS awards within the EU legal order.
  • It paves the way for increased judicial scrutiny of sports-related disputes, with enhanced review by national courts.
  • The judgment aligns with previous decisions such as Eco Swiss (C-126/97) and International Skating Union (C-124/21 P), affirming that arbitration cannot circumvent the fundamental guarantees of EU law.
  • This solution also echoes the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling in Semenya v. Switzerland, delivered on 10 July 2025, in which the Court emphasized that the exclusive and mandatory nature of CAS arbitration requires particularly rigorous judicial review of CAS awards. It found that the Swiss Federal Tribunal’s review did not meet the standards of Article 6(1) of the ECHR, concerning the right to a fair trial.
  • Finally, this judgment marks a turning point in the regulation of professional sport in Europe: it calls on sports federations to rethink their dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly regarding TPO and mandatory arbitration, and to integrate EU law requirements into their regulations and disciplinary procedures.