Judgement of the General Court of the European Union – ISU Eligibility Rules

gsk8

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Country
United-States
Press Release today by the ISU:

The ISU welcomes the annulment by the General Court judgment on 16 December 2020 (Case T-93/18) of the provisions of the European Commission of 8 December 2017 requiring the ISU to amend its Eligibility Rules with respect to the CAS arbitration system. The General Court has confirmed that the CAS arbitration system is fully consistent with EU law.

The ISU also notes with satisfaction that the General Court has recognized the legitimacy of the ISU’s pre-authorization system intended to ensure that any organizer of sporting competitions “comply with common standards, seeking in particular to ensure that competitions take place fairly and the physical and ethical integrity of sportspeople is protected”. The ISU also notes that the General Court has expressly recognized that it was legitimate for the ISU “to establish rules seeking to prevent sports betting from creating risks of manipulation of competitions and athletes”.

The ISU maintains that its Eligibility Rules have never been enforced with a view to preventing the organization of third-party skating events and regrets that the judgment does not address the substantial evidence put forward by the ISU confirming this. Following the adoption of the 2017 Commission decision, the ISU amended its Eligibility Rules in 2018 pursuant to implementation discussions with the European Commission. The Court judgment relates to a version of the Eligibility Rules which is no longer in force and therefore has no impact on the ISU’s current operations.

The ISU is currently further evaluating the judgment and reserves an appeal to the European Court of Justice.
 

alexocfp

Final Flight
Joined
Nov 28, 2020
Country
United-States
Can someone explain the figure skating aspect of this ruling?

I know that the original lawsuit was speed skating related. A few skaters wanted to skate in a third party event in South Korea but were threatened with a ban from ISU events.
 

ladyjane

Medalist
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Country
Netherlands
It wasn't a third party event in South Korea but in Dubai. A Dutch Short tracker as well as a long track skater wished to take part in an ice derby there. A lucrative ice derby which wasn't organised by the ISU or under their rules. The ISU forbade them to go, and also threatened all skaters who wished to attend with a life long suspension from official ISU events. This took place in 2014. These two skaters took their case to the EU Commission first, and then to court. In the meantime the eligibility rules were changed due to what the EU Commission demanded regarding what such organisations can or cannot do in relation to the athletes.

So, the outcome is a mixed bag really, with the ISU claiming victory because the case concerns eligibility rules that are no longer in place, while the two skaters also claim victory because the action they fought against can no longer take place (but it couldn't take place any more in any case as the rules had already been changed in 2018). There's probably a lot more, but this is what I took out of it, having read both the statement by the ISU and the statements of the skaters (both retired now by the way).
 

alexocfp

Final Flight
Joined
Nov 28, 2020
Country
United-States
It wasn't a third party event in South Korea but in Dubai. A Dutch Short tracker as well as a long track skater wished to take part in an ice derby there. A lucrative ice derby which wasn't organised by the ISU or under their rules. The ISU forbade them to go, and also threatened all skaters who wished to attend with a life long suspension from official ISU events. This took place in 2014. These two skaters took their case to the EU Commission first, and then to court. In the meantime the eligibility rules were changed due to what the EU Commission demanded regarding what such organisations can or cannot do in relation to the athletes.

So, the outcome is a mixed bag really, with the ISU claiming victory because the case concerns eligibility rules that are no longer in place, while the two skaters also claim victory because the action they fought against can no longer take place (but it couldn't take place any more in any case as the rules had already been changed in 2018). There's probably a lot more, but this is what I took out of it, having read both the statement by the ISU and the statements of the skaters (both retired now by the way).
Ah yes. Dubai. Thanks for the correction.
 
Top