B N O Walrave And L J N Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie Et Federacion Espanola Ciclismo: ECJ 12 Dec 1974

ECJ The practice of sport is subject to community law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of article 2 of the Treaty. The prohibition of discrimination based on nationality in the sphere of economic activities which have the character of gainful employment or remunerated service covers all work or services without regard to the exact nature of the legal relationship under which such activities are performed. The prohibition of discrimination based on nationality does not affect the composition of sport teams, in particular national teams, the formation of which is a question of purely sporting interest and as such has nothing to do with economic activity. Prohibition of discrimination does not only apply to the action of public authorities but extends likewise to rules of any other nature aimed at regulating in a collective manner gainful employment and the provision of services. The rule on non-discrimination applies to all legal relationships which can be located within the territory of the community by reason either of the place where they are entered into or of the place where they take effect. The first paragraph of article 59, in any event in so far as it refers to the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality, creates individual rights which national courts must protect.
C-36/74, R-36/74, [1974] EUECJ R-36/74, [1974] ECR 1405
Cited by:
CitedInternational Transport Workers’ Federation and Another v Viking Line Abp and Another CA 3-Nov-2005
An order had been made restraining the defendant trades unions from taking industrial action. The unions said the UK court had no jurisdiction.
Held: ‘It is at first sight surprising that the English Commercial Court should be the forum in . .
CitedAdidas-Salomon Ag v Drape and others ChD 7-Jun-2006
The claimants had sponsored tennis players to wear their logo. The respondents organised tennis tournaments whose intended rules would prevent the display of the claimant’s logos. The claimants said that the restriction interfered with their rights . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.214400