European Court of Justice

Review of sports arbitration now possible

TAS rulings are no longer automatically deemed unquestionable. A new balance is needed between EU law and the international sporting order

by Federico Venturi Ferriolo

30 August 2025

3' min read

Key points

The role of Tas
Other decisions
Future perspectives

3' min read

With its recent ruling in the Rfc Seraing vs. Fifa case, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) marked a very important step in the increasingly delicate relationship between sport and EU law. The CJEU ruled that the awards of the Sports Arbitration Tribunal (CAS) in Lausanne may also be subject to judicial review by the national courts of the Member States in order to verify respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms recognised by the EU. A conclusion that, while not affecting the very existence and autonomy of international sports arbitration, puts the national courts back in the centre and opens up unprecedented scenarios for the structure of sports justice.

The role of the Tas

Until now, the centrality of the CAS - an institution based in Switzerland, therefore outside the European system, governed by arbitration rules under Swiss law - was based on its acknowledged ability to ensure speed, competence and uniformity in decisions on sports disputes. The provision of Lausanne as an exclusive and autonomous arbitration forum in the international arena for clubs, athletes and federations had become the rule, providing the sports system with a kind of legal certainty. However, the ECJ clarified that this arrangement cannot prevail where rights protected by the Union are at stake, which must also find effective protection in the courts.

The crucial point is that, according to the CJEU, although the TAS may also apply EU law when necessary, this circumstance is not sufficient in itself to guarantee respect for the fundamental rights enshrined in the EU. Hence the possibility for national courts to re-examine the TAS's arbitral awards in cases where EU law profiles are involved. A break with the past: the TAS's awards can no longer automatically be considered immutable or unquestionable, nor can they have the value of absolute res iudicata.

The other decisions

This development follows in the wake of other important recent decisions, such as the Isu ruling, which had already called into question the intangibility of sports arbitration. It is no coincidence that the Uefa had introduced - on an experimental basis and for limited cases - the possibility of recourse to Dublin-based arbitration, so as to guarantee a direct link with the European judicial system. A clear sign of a growing awareness of the risk of 'legal isolation' linked to the exclusive legal intangibility of Tas awards.

Decreto Sport, casco in pista per tutti e pene più severe per chi aggredisce un arbitro

Future Perspectives

The Seraing ruling represents, therefore, a turning point. On the one hand, it reaffirms the central role of the national courts as the guarantors of last resort of European fundamental rights; on the other, it confronts the sporting world with the need to devise new solutions that are more in line with the EU legal framework.

There are several hypotheses on the table. One is that of establishing a seat of the CAS within the EU, so as to ensure a full connection with the European system and its standards of protection. Another, even more radical, is the creation of a specialised section within the CJC itself, capable of combining the specificity of sports law with the procedural guarantees provided by EU law. Lastly, a further possibility, which would guarantee the autonomy of the TAS, could consist in selecting a group of arbitrators who are experts in European law from which the TAS could 'draw' from time to time to compose the individual arbitration panels called upon to decide on matters relating to EU law, so as to ensure already at the arbitration stage an in-depth control on the respect of the relevant principles.

Whatever the path, it is clear that this is not a legal technicality. What is at stake is the very legitimacy of international sports arbitration and, with it, the confidence of the athletes and the clubs in seeing their fundamental rights recognised and protected by arbitrators who are experts in the field and who are called upon to rule quickly and with certainty. The EU, once again, asserts itself as a legal space that does not tolerate free zones: sport, too, cannot escape the principles of protection of rights and effective judicial review.

The Seraing case therefore opens a new season. International sports arbitration will continue to play a central role, but can no longer consider itself a self-sufficient universe. The future ofsports justice will depend on the ability of sports institutions to rethink themselves, accepting that harmonisation with EU law is not a threat, but a necessary condition to strengthen their legitimacy and credibility.