Action brought on 20 August 2010 - F91 Diddeléng and Others v Commission

(Case T-341/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: F91 Diddeléng (Dudelange, Luxembourg), Julien Bonnetaud (Yutz, France), Thomas Gruszczynski (Amnéville, France), Rainer Hauck (Maxdorf, Allemagne), Stéphane Martine (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Grégory Molnar (Moyeuvre-Grande, France) and Yann Thibout (Algrange, France) (represented by: L. Misson, C. Delrée and G. Ernes, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annul the contested decision of the European Commission, adopted on 3 June 2010;

Annul the rules which are contrary to Articles 45 and 101 TFEU;

Impose any appropriate sanction.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants (Dudelange football club and the non-Luxembourg players employed by that club) seek annulment of the Commission decision of 3 June 2020, communicated by letter of 21 June 2010, in which the Commission informed the applicants that it intended to take no action in regard to their complaint against the Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Football (FLF), based on Articles 45 and 101 TFEU, concerning the FLF rules preventing the applicants from taking part in certain football matches if the number of foreign players appearing on the match sheet is greater than a number laid down in the FLF rules;

In support of their action, the applicants put forward two pleas in law alleging:

-    an infringement of Article 45 TFEU, inasmuch as the obligation currently laid down in the FLF rules to place, on the official match sheet, seven players who had obtained their first licence in Luxembourg and the prohibition on placing, on the same match sheet, more than four players transferred during the sporting year constitutes direct discrimination preventing a national of a Member State from exercising an economic activity in Luxembourg territory. The applicants also claim that, in so far as the FLF rules constitute, not direct discrimination, but indirect discrimination, the objectives invoked by the FLF, namely, that its purpose is to promote the game of football as an amateur sport, are unfounded and cannot therefore be regarded as legitimate objectives. The restrictions are therefore disproportionate compared to the objective invoked.

-    an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, inasmuch as the FLF must be regarded as an association of undertakings infringing competition law, and more particularly, Article 101 TFEU, in so far as the restrictions on the number of foreign players have economic consequences for professional sportsmen and adversely affect competition between Luxembourg football clubs.

____________