Introduction
On 16 July 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) delivered its judgment in Case C-424/24, ZD v Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC) and Others (ECLI:EU:C:2026:602). The case arose from a reference for a preliminary ruling and concerned disciplinary sanctions imposed by a national sports association — the Italian Football Federation — on two directors of a professional football club.
The sanctions in question took the form of a temporary prohibition on the pursuit of certain professional activities. They were imposed in response to an infringement consisting in making or approving false financial and accounting statements. The judgment addresses a cluster of significant legal questions spanning EU internal market law, the principle of proportionality, and the fundamental right to effective judicial protection as guaranteed by EU law.
This article sets out the principal legal issues identified by the Court as they appear in the judgment's subject-matter headings, and explains their significance for national sports associations, affected individuals, and national courts operating within the EU legal order.
Background: disciplinary sanctions in professional sport and EU law
The case concerns a temporary prohibition on the pursuit of certain professional activities imposed by a national sports association on two directors of a professional football club. The underlying infringement was described as making or approving false financial and accounting statements.
The reference for a preliminary ruling placed before the Court the question of whether such sanctions, adopted within the framework of a national sports association's disciplinary rules, are compatible with EU law — in particular with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) governing the internal market, and with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The involvement of the Court of Justice through the preliminary ruling procedure reflects the established principle that, even where a matter is regulated primarily by a private or semi-public body such as a sports federation, EU law may still apply where the activities in question fall within the scope of the internal market.
Internal market freedoms: Articles 45 and 56 TFEU
A central question addressed in the judgment concerns whether the disciplinary sanctions at issue constitute an obstacle to the freedom of movement for workers, protected by Article 45 TFEU, and to the freedom to provide services, protected by Article 56 TFEU.
The Court's analysis, as reflected in the subject-matter headings of the judgment, considers whether a temporary prohibition on the pursuit of certain professional activities imposed by a national sports association is capable of restricting the exercise of those fundamental freedoms. A temporary ban on professional activity can, by its nature, prevent or deter individuals from exercising their rights under the internal market framework.
The judgment also examines whether any such obstacle may be justified. In this regard, the Court considers the legitimate objective in the public interest of ensuring the proper conduct of sporting competitions. This reflects the Court's recognition, consistent with the structure of the judgment, that the integrity of sporting competition may constitute a legitimate aim capable of justifying restrictions on internal market freedoms, provided that the restrictions satisfy the requirements of EU law.
The principle of proportionality and the determination of sanctions
Even where a restriction on internal market freedoms pursues a legitimate objective, it must comply with the principle of proportionality. The judgment addresses the observance of this principle in the context of the determination of sanctions by a national sports association.
Specifically, the Court examines whether the criteria used to determine the sanctions are transparent, objective, non-discriminatory, proportionate, and verifiable. The presence or absence of such criteria is directly relevant to whether the sanctions can be regarded as proportionate under EU law.
This aspect of the judgment is of practical importance for national sports associations across the EU. It signals that disciplinary frameworks must be structured in a manner that allows for meaningful scrutiny of the basis on which sanctions are calculated and applied, and that the existence of clear, verifiable criteria is a requirement under EU law rather than merely a matter of good governance.
Effective judicial protection: Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter
A particularly significant dimension of the judgment concerns the right to effective judicial protection. The Court examines this question by reference to the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which requires member states to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law, and to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal.
The specific national legislative framework at issue is described in the judgment as one that allows the court having jurisdiction over the indirect review of the lawfulness of the sanctions to award compensation to the persons subject to those sanctions, but does not allow that court to annul or suspend the sanctions themselves.
The Court's examination of this framework raises the fundamental question of whether a remedy limited to the award of compensation — without the power to annul or suspend the measure complained of — constitutes effective judicial review within the meaning of EU law. This is a question of considerable constitutional importance, as it goes to the adequacy of national procedural arrangements for the protection of rights derived from EU law.
The significance of indirect review and the limits of compensatory remedies
The judgment draws attention to the distinction between direct and indirect review of the lawfulness of disciplinary sanctions. In the national legal framework described, the court with jurisdiction conducts an indirect review — meaning that it does not have the power to set aside or suspend the sanction, but may only award compensation if it finds the sanction to have been unlawful.
This arrangement raises questions about the practical effectiveness of judicial protection. Where a sanction consists of a temporary prohibition on professional activity, the harm suffered may be immediate and irreversible in practical terms. A remedy that operates only after the fact, through the award of damages, may not adequately address the situation of a person who has been prevented from working during the period of the sanction.
The Court's engagement with this issue, as reflected in the subject-matter headings of the judgment, indicates that the question of whether effective judicial review requires the possibility of annulment or suspension — and not merely compensation — is a live and important one under EU law.
Implications for national sports associations and member states
The judgment in Case C-424/24 has implications for the way in which national sports associations design and apply their disciplinary frameworks, and for the way in which member states structure the judicial oversight of those frameworks.
As regards disciplinary frameworks, the judgment underlines that sanctions which restrict professional activity must be based on transparent, objective, non-discriminatory, proportionate, and verifiable criteria. Associations whose rules do not meet these standards may find that their sanctions are incompatible with EU internal market law.
As regards judicial oversight, the judgment raises the question of whether national procedural rules that limit the court's powers to the award of compensation — without permitting annulment or suspension of unlawful sanctions — are compatible with the requirements of effective judicial protection under Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter. Member states and national legislatures may need to consider whether their existing arrangements provide a sufficient standard of protection.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2026 in ZD v FIGC and Others (Case C-424/24) addresses the intersection of EU internal market law, the principle of proportionality, and the fundamental right to effective judicial protection in the context of disciplinary sanctions imposed by a national sports association. The Court examines whether a temporary prohibition on professional activity constitutes an obstacle to the freedoms guaranteed by Articles 45 and 56 TFEU, whether any such obstacle can be justified by the legitimate objective of ensuring the proper conduct of sporting competitions, and whether the criteria for determining sanctions meet the requirements of transparency, objectivity, non-discrimination, proportionality, and verifiability.
The judgment also engages with a question of significant constitutional importance: whether a national legislative framework that permits only indirect review of the lawfulness of disciplinary sanctions, and limits the available remedy to the award of compensation without the power to annul or suspend the sanction, satisfies the requirements of effective judicial protection under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Taken together, these issues make the judgment a notable contribution to the developing body of EU law on the regulation of sport, the limits of private disciplinary power, and the standards of judicial protection required by EU law. Persons affected by disciplinary sanctions imposed by sports associations, as well as national courts and legislators, should be attentive to the principles articulated by the Court in this ruling.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications