Non c’è pace per il Fair Play Finanziario: presentata la seconda causa per presunta violazione delle normative UE

Lo scorso 6 maggio l'avvocato belga Jean-Luis Dupont (che vinse la cosiddetta "Causa Bosman" che consente ai calciatori professionisti aventi cittadinanza UE di trasferirsi gratuitamente a un altro club alla scadenza del contratto con l'attuale squadra) aveva presentato un ricorso alla Commissione UE, sostenendo che alcune parti del Regolamento UEFA sul Financial Fair Play non sono coerenti con la normativa europea. In particolare si sosteneva che l'art. 57 del Regolamento, quello che che introduce l'obbligo del pareggio di bilancio (Break-Even Rule) violerebbe il principio di concorrenza.

Oggi, lo stesso avvocato ha presentato un secondo ricorso, questa volta al Tribunale di Bruxelles, richiedendo un pronunciamento contrario al Regolamento in quanto violerebbe sia il principio di concorrenza, sia il principio della libera circolazione (di lavoratori, servizi e capitali).

Ecco il testo del comunicato stampa, ripreso dal sito Financialfairplay:

 

Striani opens second front on legal challenge to UEFA’s break-even rule

Belgian player agent Daniel Striani is continuing his challenge of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rule today by launching a legal action in the Court of First Instance in Brussels.  The process will ask the Court to judge on alleged infringements of both EU competition law and the right to free movement (of workers, services and capital).

This latest legal challenge follows a complaint Striani lodged with the European Commission in May against UEFA’s Financial Fair Play which argued that the "Break-even rule" (the obligation for financial equilibrium) was in contravention to fundamental principles of EU competition law. That process is ongoing and the Commission is expected to rule in 2014. 

Since UEFA’s rule affects all football clubs, players and staff within the European Union, Striani is arguing that the Court of First Instance of Brussels seeks from the European Union Court of Justice a preliminary ruling on its compatibility with EU law (specifically free movement of workers, services, capital, and free competition).

Striani’s case argues that the UEFA rule is illegal under EU law because it is a disproportionate response and that there are more effective alternatives such as allowing over-spending if fully guaranteed; establish a "luxury tax"; or change the model of revenue sharing with regards to the UEFA club competitions.

This latest legal process is supported by a growing body of economic and legal opinion which argues that the UEFA rule is ineffective, illegal and disproportionate given alternative measures available.