C-36-74, Walrave & Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale (1974)

1. Facts:

◦ The case involved a Dutch cycling team where the rules of the cycling federation required that pacemakers and stayers (cyclists) must be of the same nationality.

◦ This rule was challenged by two Dutch pacemakers who argued it violated the principles of free movement under EU law.

◦ The core issue was whether EU law applied to sports organisations, specifically to their rules regarding nationality requirements.

2. Outcome:

◦ The ECJ ruled that sports are indeed subject to EU law when they involve economic activities, particularly in the areas of remuneration and free movement of persons and services.

◦ The Court acknowledged that while sports have a specific nature, they are not exempt from EU law when their activities fall within the scope of economic activities under Article 56 TFEU (formerly Article 49 EEC).

3. Impact and Analysis:

◦ Application of EU Law: The case confirmed that EU free movement rights can be invoked against sports federations and their rules, even if these rules are applied by private entities.

◦ Horizontal Application: While free movement rights traditionally protect individuals from state interference (vertical application), this case established that such rights can also apply in private versus private relations (horizontal application) if the activities are economic in nature.

◦ Special Treatment Justification: The Court acknowledged that the 'specific nature' of sport might justify certain exceptions, but rules imposing nationality requirements were a blatant form of discrimination and thus impermissible.