On 10 March 2020, the French ( ) confirmed the possibility for the executive committee of the FFF ( ) to accept the propositions of the CNOSF ( ) given in the course of a conciliation and to additionally ask the DNCG ( ) to convene and to take other measures. In such a context, to create rights with a decision qualifying as an administrative decision ( ), the FFF has to take a new decision containing its own legal and fact reasons ( ), this later cancelling the first one of the DNCG.
In this case, for financial reasons, the first measure ruled by the DNCG prohibited from accessing .
The DNCG is an independent entity by law created by the FFF in the view of ensuring the sustainability of sports associations and companies, to encourage the respect of sport equity and to contribute to economic regulation of competitions. Its main mission is to organize the financial, legal and administrative control of members of sports associations and companies belonging to the FFF or of the professional league (or even those which ask to join them). Albeit considered as independent, the DNCG does not have the legal personality and forms part of the FFF.
After a mandatory conciliation before the CNOSF on 25 July 2014, other measures were instead proposed by such entity: (i) limitation of the number of employees and / or (ii) recruitment control. On 28 July 2014, the executive committee of the FFF thereafter decided to accept these other measures but additionally asked the DNCG to convene in order to determine how would play in . In such a context, this latest decision was challenged by a relegated team from to ( ) (being ranked 18 after the championship and hoping staying in ).
Such complaint is dismissed by the for the second time.
The main subject arising from this case and developed in the report of the public draftsman ( - see conclusions , available on the website of the ) deals with the qualification of the second decision dated 28 July 2014 and the correlative cancellation of the first decision dated 26 June 2014.
To rule the case, the runs a limited scrutiny check ( ) over the new decision taken after the conciliation on 28 July 2014 (standard in this kind of case). In this respect, the ensured an absence of manifest error ( ) only, and followed the conclusions of the public draftsman: the executive committee of the FFF did not take an inconsiderable risk in cancelling the first decision of the DNCG and in deciding instead the limitation of the number of employees and / or the recruitment control. No EMA ( ) can derive from this new decision.
Even if not raised in the case dated 10 March 2020, it might be argued that the question of interest to act () of Sochaux could also have solved this case. The interest to act of could have successfully been challenged in the first instance as these two teams were playing in different leagues: it is not because would have stayed in (due to financial reasons) that would had won the right to stay in . There is no link between the two: as such, could also have lost the case on the ground of lack of grievance ( ) of the FFF decision. In addition, Sochaux cannot be considered as representing the collective interest of the whole profession.
By this decision, the hopefully confirms the latitude of sport institutions vested with public power prerogatives ( ), but remains, with the ECHR ( ) one of the ultimate regulation entities.
Up to date 20 March 2020
On 5 July 2018, the French (civ. 2), ruled that violence against a referee made within the sports facilities by a player constitutes an infringement of the rules of the game linked to the sportive activity, even if such an assault is committed after the football match (from which the said player has previously been excluded).
Up to date 5 July 2018
22 avenue de l'Observatoire
(près du jardin du Luxembourg)
Port : +33(0)6 72 10 29 75
Fax : +33(0)1 45 38 57 10
Vous pouvez également utiliser notre formulaire de contact.