News about the ‘Lass Diarra case’: There is already a resolution from the Court of Justice of the EU

The resolution of Court of law The former footballer’s complaint was resolved this Friday real Madrid, Diarrhea womanwho challenged some of the rules adopted by FIFA before the Belgian courts, claiming that they prevented him from being hired by a Belgian football club.

The Frenchman, who has also played for Chelsea, Arsenal and PSG among others, was unsigned in 2014 for Charleroi Belgian after the termination of Locomotive because FIFA denied him a transfer permit because he had unpaid debts to the Russians. The player was also fined 10 million.

Diarrhea woman He argued at the time that the Russian team relied on a decline in his performance to remove him from the team, while Lokomotiv itself argued that the midfielder did not attend some training sessions by his own decision. FIFA relied on its current transfer regulations to prevent him from signing for Belgian side Charleroi.

The rule discussed is included in the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In particular, when a club considers that one of its players has terminated his employment contract without “just cause” before the date of termination of the employment contract without “just cause” before the normal duration of said contract. In that case, the player and any club that wants to sign him will be jointly and severally liable for any compensation owed to the former club. Furthermore, the new club may, in certain circumstances, be subject to a sporting sanction consisting of a ban on the registration of new players for a certain period. Finally, the national association to which the player’s former club belongs must refuse to issue an International Transfer Certificate to the association where the new club is registered while there is a dispute between the former club and the player regarding the termination of the contract .

This Friday the Court of Justice of the European Union declared that all these regulations are contrary to Union Law. First because “it may hinder the free movement of professional football players who want to develop their activity by going to work in a new club, established in the territory of another Member State of the European Union.”

The Court considered that these types of rules impose “substantial legal risks, unpredictability and potentially very high financial risks as well as significant sporting risks for players and clubs who wish to take on them.” The resolution went on to argue that, although restrictions on the free movement of professional players may be justified by compelling reasons of general interest consisting of guaranteeing the regularity of football competitions between clubs while maintaining a certain stability in the player lists of professional football clubs, in this case it goes beyond what is necessary to pursue said goal.

And secondly, and with regard to competition law, the Court of Justice considered “that the disputed rules aim to restrict, and even prevent, the cross-border competition that can be pursued by all clubs established in the European Union , by unilateral hiring of players under contract with another club or of players whose employment contract has been terminated without just cause.”

The Court of Justice concludes by recalling that the possibility of competition through the recruitment of trained players plays an important role in the professional football sector.

FIFA responded

For its part, FIFA spoke out as soon as it learned of the EU Court’s decision. In a statement, it said it “notes the decision issued today by the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to the case of player Lassana Diarra.”

FIFA says it is satisfied that “the legality of the basic principles of the transfer system has been reaffirmed in today’s decision. The decision questions only two paragraphs of two articles of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which invite which will now be considered by the national court.” And it ends by adding that “FIFA will review the decision in consultation with other interested parties before making further comments”