Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina [2006] ECR I-6991

Abstract

The appellants, Mr Meca-Medina and Mr Majcen, both professional long-distance swimmers, asked the European Court of Justice (known since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009 as the Court of Justice of the European Union or “CJEU”) to set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (known since December 2009 as the European General Court or “EGC”) of 30 September 2004 in Case T-313/02 Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission [2004] ECR II-3291 by which the EGC had dismissed the appellants’ action for annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 1 August 2002 (Case COMP/38158—Meca-Medina and Majcen/IOC). The Commission had rejected the appellant’s complaint lodged by them against the International Olympic Committee (“the IOC”) and seeking a declaration that certain rules adopted by the IOC and implemented by the Fédération Internationale de Natation (International Swimming Federation; “FINA”) and certain practices relating to doping control were incompatible with fundamental principles of European Community law (now, since December 2009, European Union law or “EU law”) and including provision on competition law (Case COMP/38158—Meca-Medina and Majcen/IOC). In its ruling the CJEU reiterated that, having regard to the general objectives of the European Union, sport is subject to EU law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity and where a sporting activity takes the form of gainful employment or the provision of services for remuneration, which is true of the activities of semi-professional or professional sportsmen, it falls, more specifically, within the scope of Article 39 EC et seq (now Article 45TFEU) or Article 49 EC et seq (now Article 56TFEU). These provisions on freedom of movement for persons and freedom to provide services do not, however, affect rules concerning questions which are of “purely sporting interest” and, as such, have nothing to do with economic activity. In assessing the compatibility of the disputed anti-doping regulations with EU competition law, the CJEU noted that, first of all, account had to be taken of the overall context in which the decision of the (sporting) associations was taken or produces its effects and, more specifically, of its objectives. It has then to be considered whether the consequential effects restrictive of competition are inherent in the pursuit of those objectives and are proportionate to them.