Editor's note: Daniela Heerdt is a PhD candidate at Tilburg Law School in the Netherlands and works as Research Officer for the Centre for Sports and Human Rights. Her PhD research deals with the establishment of responsibility and accountability for adverse human rights impacts of mega-sporting events, with a focus on FIFA World Cups and Olympic Games. She published an article in the International Sports Law Journal that discusses to what extent the revised bidding and hosting regulations by FIFA, the IOC and UEFA strengthen access to remedy for mega-sporting events-related human rights violations.

On November 26^th, the Human Rights Advisory Board[1] of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) published its second report. This blog provides a summary and brief evaluation of the report, by drawing a comparison to the previous report issued by the Human Rights Advisory Board (hereinafter: the Board) based on the content of the recommendations and FIFA’s efforts to implement the Board’s recommendations. The third part of this blog briefly reflects on the broader implications of some of the new recommendations issued for FIFA’s internal policies. The conclusion provides five more general points of observation on the report.

Old and New Recommendations

In its second report, the Board makes 30 ‘specific recommendations’ to FIFA, just slightly less than the previous one. However, not all of these recommendations are new to FIFA. A number of them have been released in the two update statements the Board released since the publication of its first report, one in May 2018 and one in October 2018. Two more sets of recommendations were communicated to FIFA in December 2017 and February 2018, which are as well included in this new report, but which have not been reported publicly before.

Content-wise, most of the recommendations still deal with the human rights risks associated with FIFA’s upcoming and past events. The recommendations made with regard to the human rights issues surrounding the 2018 World Cup hosted by Russia have been issued in December 2017 and concern the general situation and human rights of construction workers, human rights defenders and media representatives, mostly recommending that FIFA should use its leverage to address these issues with the government or other relevant stakeholders, such as the Local Organizing Committee (LOC). Another December-recommendation concerned the sharing of measures taken by FIFA to investigate the involvement of Russia football players in the Russian doping scandal. Furthermore, the report includes the Board’s recommendations regarding the controversies surrounding the choice of accommodation of the Egyptian national team[2], which had been addressed in a set of recommendations initially issued in February 2018[AD1] . With regard to the human rights requirements for hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup, the report repeats the recommendation issued in May 2018, concerning FIFA’s task to take into account the capacity of bidders to assess and manage human rights risks when deciding for a host. On this issue, the report also introduces a new recommendation for FIFA to reflect on the inclusion of human rights into the bidding requirements. Furthermore, the report also includes ‘interim recommendations’ in relation to the FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar, and disclosed that a more detailed set of recommendations can be expected shortly.[3]

While these issues were already present in the first report, four new issues have been added in this second report by the Board:

• player’s rights,
• child safeguarding,
• the ban on woman attending sport matches in Iran,
• and FIFA’s approach to engagement and communication on human rights.[4]

With regard to player’s rights, the Board’s recommendations focus on access to remedy and FIFA’s evaluation of existing football arbitration mechanisms from a human rights perspective, the rules of the employment market for players and FIFA’s review of these rules, and on FIFA’s regulations on player’s rights which need to take the specific situation of children into account. Concerning child safeguarding, the Board recommends that FIFA’s safeguarding working group should conduct a comprehensive stakeholder consultation to identify the responsibilities of member associations concerning child players. Regarding the issue of discrimination against women in Iran, the Board recommends for FIFA to use its leverage on the Iranian Association and to issue sanctions if nothing is changing. Finally, on FIFA’s approach to engagement and communication on human rights issues, the Board recommends that FIFA establishes a systematic annual dialogue with key stakeholders, in addition to individual and event-specific stakeholder engagement and that it adopts a transparent approach on negative impacts connected to FIFA’s activities. Furthermore, the Board calls on FIFA to communicate this approach and share relevant information with confederations and member associations.

What also changed in the second report is that the Board does not issue requests to FIFA anymore. All measures proposed are formulated as recommendations. However, it is questionable to what extent the requests entailed in the first report really made a difference, since the majority of these requests were merely inquiries for more information or clarifications on certain issues.[5] Such requests about additional information or more transparency on certain issues are now included in the recommendations, such as in recommendation R42, asking FIFA to “be as transparent as possible” and to “proactively publish the steps it has taken”.[6] 

The New Tracking System

The second report of FIFA’s Human Rights Advisory Board is not only longer in terms of page numbers  but it also provides more detailed insights into human rights-related efforts FIFA undertook in the past year and continues to undertake, based on the recommendations it received. While in the first report, ‘part B’ consisted of a general overview of FIFA’s human rights efforts up to that point in time, ‘part B’ in the new report lists concrete measures taken by FIFA in reaction to the recommendations issued by the Board in its first report and other recommendations statements made in the past year. To assess these measures, the second report introduces a tracking system, which ranks the status of FIFA’s implementation of the Board’s recommendations from 1 to 4, moving from no implementation (1), to ongoing implementation (2), to advanced implementation (3), and to full or “closed out” implementation (4).[7]

There is only one recommendation for which implementation has not yet started (category 1) according to the Board. This concerns the promotion of a policy with host countries of direct employment of construction workers to prevent the strong reliance on subcontractors, which involves greater risks for workers and migrant workers in particular.[8] Ongoing implementation (category 2) has been observed in relation to the embedding of human rights throughout the FIFA organisation, including relevant committees and key staff, as well as its member associations, the testing of the method of risk identification with informed stakeholders to confirm or challenge findings, and the joint inspections together with LOCs. Furthermore, the Board assessed that implementation is ongoing for three other recommendations: first, FIFA’s considerations on how it can make the most efficient use of its leverage when it comes to the issue of security arrangements linked to hosting a FIFA event; secondly, the publishing of information on the design, operation, and the results of the monitoring of construction sites; and thirdly, making prompt and factual statements to show awareness and knowledge about critical human rights issues when they arise. The Board found that FIFA made considerable advancement (category 3) in developing a system for risk identification,  such as monitoring systems or the detailed human rights salience analysis that is part of the Sustainability Strategy and policy of the 2022 World Cup, as well as in identifying risks to fundamental civil and political rights and communicating its expectation to respect these rights with host governments.

The adoption of a human rights policy has been assessed as fully implemented (category 4). The same evaluation has been made in relation to the recommendations for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup tournaments, as well as for the bidding processes and the 2026 FIFA World Cup. However, even though the implementation efforts concerning these issues have been evaluated under the same category, taking a closer look reveals that the actual status of implementation is not the same. This is because category 4 combines two criteria, which in fact reflect very different results. ‘Full implementation’ does not necessarily reflect the same situation as ‘closed out implementation’. In other words, a reason for an implementation to end (‘close out’) is not necessarily linked to the fact that the recommended measure has been implemented in its entirety. In fact, full implementation of a certain measure can produce a completely different scenario than abandoning a certain recommendation or measure.

This can be illustrated by taking a closer look at the implementation of measures recommended to FIFA concerning the handling of human rights issues related to the 2018 World Cup. Most of them have been assessed as fully implemented or closed out, and so have the measures taken in relation to the 2022 World Cup. In reality, however, the 2018 World Cup lies in the past and the majority of measures taken in that context were discontinued before they could fully be implemented. For example, the recommendation on offering the Egyptian team an alternative location, including the financial support needed, has been evaluated as ‘closed out’, even though the Egyptian team in the end decided to stick with Grozny. The same can be said about the recommendation that FIFA should raise with the LOC that timely compensation is provided in case a worker on the World Cup construction sites got injured. Even though FIFA states that they did not have access to any financial records that would allow a verification of cash flows, the recommendation has been evaluated as “implemented/closed out”.[9] Due to this combination of two criteria under category 4, simply taking a look at the tabular overview provided at the end of the report[10] can create a distorted picture of the actual implementation status of the Board’s recommendations. Instead, a more careful look at FIFA’s actual efforts on certain issues is necessary to fully understand whether FIFA was indeed successful in implementing a certain recommendation, or whether it just dropped the implementation, for instance because it was linked to a certain event that is over now. 

The Implications for FIFA’s Internal Policies

Some of the recommendations included in the report relate to how FIFA embeds its human rights commitments internally and within its member associations. For instance, according to the Board FIFA should discuss with the Board the reasons for the decision of the Ethics Committee to not publish a detailed explanation of how it reached a decision in a case, and that it should review its operations in that regard.[11] In addition, it recommends FIFA to be explicit with its member associations on what it expects and in what timeframe it expects them to align with FIFA’s human rights responsibilities. The Board also implies that anticipated sanctions should be included in FIFA Statutes, the Disciplinary Code and the Ethics Code.[12]

Furthermore, the update statement by FIFA in this second report reveals that a number of measures were taken in relation to embedding human rights in its organization, based on previous recommendations made by the Board.  For instance, FIFA Council and Committee members have to follow an e-learning course, which includes a human rights module, and a human rights working group has been established within FIFA’s Governance Committee. However, implementation on those matters is ongoing and it becomes clear that this so far has not been the focus of FIFA’s human rights-related efforts and more could be done in that regard.[13] The context and overview FIFA provides on embedding the respect for human rights is rather vague and the measures taken so far do not reach the entire FIFA organization.[14]

Conclusion

A number of general observations can be made based on this summary and comparison. First, most recommendations and action taken by FIFA seem to concentrate on FIFA’s commitment to identify and address human rights risks, which actually was already the case in the first report. Secondly, while FIFA’s events still seem to be a priority, the Board focused also on new issues. Yet, perhaps not enough attention is dedicated to changing FIFA’s international structures and culture into a well-established acceptance and reflection of FIFA’s human rights responsibilities. Furthermore, the report provides valuable and detailed insight into the progress made and how it is made, for instance in relation to FIFA’s leverage over Qatar’s Supreme Committee and the Qatari government to change certain regulations, the human rights defender cases in which FIFA intervened, or the external partners FIFA worked with to address certain human rights risks.[15] Finally, it is a comprehensive report, reflecting the Board’s understanding towards FIFA’s burden of having to address issues of “the past, present and future all at once”, and the fact that “FIFA has to deal with the legacy of decisions taken and contracts signed before the organisation recognized its human rights responsibilities”.[16] This also shows that FIFA takes the Board seriously and in many ways follows the Board’s recommendations.

In general, the fact that FIFA has an active Human Rights Advisory Board in place for more than a year now and renewed its mandate until the end of 2020 should be applauded.[17] Just this month, the International Olympic Committee announced that it is also setting up a Human Rights Advisory Committee, which is supposed to be fully operational by the 2024 Olympic Games, unfortunately not in time for the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022.

[1] The members of the board are listed in the annex of the first report.

[2] Egypt’s national team chose Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, as its training camp during the World Cup 2018. FIFA authorized this choice, despite the fact that the region’s human rights record is dominated by cases of extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances and the Head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, is known for his repression of journalists, critics, minority groups, and human rights defenders.  

[3] See p.19 of the second report

[4] Ibid., p 20

[5] See p. 5, 7, or 11 of the first report

[6] See p. 15 of the second report

[7] See p. 5 of the second report

[8] See p. 60 of the second report

[9] See p. 48 of the second report

[10] Ibid. p. 80 ff.

[11] Ibid. p. 27

[12] Ibid. p. 25

[13] Ibid. p. 34 f.

[14] Ibid. p. 33 & 35

[15] Ibid. pp. 17-18, 67, & 69

[16] Ibid. p. 28

[17] Ibid. p. 79

Editor’s note: Sven Demeulemeester and Niels Verborgh are sports lawyers at the Belgium law firm, Altius.

Introduction

In its 16 November 2018 judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States (the EFTA Court) delivered its eagerly awaited ruling in the case involving Henrik Kristoffersen and the Norwegian Ski Federation (NSF). 

On 17 October 2016, Kristoffersen had taken the NSF to the Oslo District Court over the latter’s refusal to let the renowned alpine skier enter into a sponsorship with Red Bull. At stake were the commercial markings on his helmet and headgear in races organised under the NSF’s umbrella. The NSF refused this sponsorship because it had already granted the advertising on helmet and headgear to its own main sponsor, Telenor. Kristoffersen claimed before the Oslo District Court, that the NSF should be ordered to permit him to enter into an individual marketing contract with Red Bull. In the alternative, Kristoffersen claimed damages up to a maximum of NOK 15 million. By a letter of 25 September 2017, the Oslo District Court referred several legal questions to the EFTA Court in view of shedding light on the compatibility of the rules that the NSF had invoked with EEA law.

If rules do not relate to the conduct of the sport itself, but concern sponsorship rights and hence an economic activity, these rules are subject to EEA law. The EFTA Court ruling is important in that it sets out the framework for dealing with - ever more frequent - cases in which an individual athlete’s endorsement deals conflict with the interest of the national or international sports governing bodies (SGBs) that he or she represents in international competitions.

The Kristoffersen ruling: the EFTA Court targets athlete endorsement deals 

A. Facts and procedures

Henrik Kristoffersen, silver medalist at the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympic Games and a bronze medalist at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games, is a member of the Norwegian national alpine skiing team. Kristoffersen is not an employee of the Norwegian Ski Federation (NSF), but he did sign a standard athlete’s contract with the NSF to be able to participate in the national team.[1]

The Norwegian Ski Federation (NSF) - a non-profit organisation - is a sports organisation, which organises, among other things, activities in the discipline of alpine skiing. The NSF is a member of both the International Ski Federation (FIS) and of the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF). Therefore, the NSF is subject to the FIS’ and the NIF’s regulations. Only the FIS and its national federations, such as the NSF, organise alpine skiing races of financial value to alpine skiers in classic disciplines, such as the slalom and downhill skiing. The NSF is financed by public funds and marketing contracts. The revenues gained from marketing activities accounted for 71% of the NSF’s total income in 2015.[2]

Individual sponsorship agreements are subject to the NSF’s approval,[3] although the NSF’s standard athlete contract foresees an exception[4] in which the athlete may enter into individual sponsorship agreements with equipment providers in the NSF’s “skipool”. The NSF skipool is a pool scheme that is open to selected equipment suppliers without requiring the NSF’s approval. To become a member of the NSF skipool, suppliers must be approved as an equipment supplier by the FIS/NSF. In addition, they also must pay an annual fee to the NSF. Athletes are prohibited from entering into agreements with any supplier that is not a member of the NSF skipool.

The NSF covers all expenses (e.g. board and lodging, transport, equipment, medical support, insurance, etc.) of the members of the Norwegian national alpine skiing team for approximately 200 days a year, but the athletes do not receive any of the funds that the NSF collects from the main and co-sponsors as the athletes’ own income.[5]

This specific case concerns a dispute between Kristoffersen and the NSF relating to an individual sponsorship contract that Kristoffersen had with Red Bull[6] for helmet and headgear worn in races under the auspices of the NSF and the International Ski Federation (FIS). Kristoffersen and Red Bull had been seeking to enter into such an agreement since 2014, but the NSF had refused permission for Kristoffersen to sign the contract at the end of April 2018.[7] The NSF had already decided to include space upon its helmet and headgear in the contract with its main sponsor, Telenor.

B. Questions to the EFTA Court and its answers

The questions

In this dispute, the Oslo District Court referred six questions to the EFTA Court, the supranational judicial body responsible for interpreting the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) for the EFTA States that are parties to the EEA Agreement (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway).[8]

The questions essentially covered two issues.

The first issue was whether rules, such as those in the NSF Joint Regulations, on prior control and consent for individual sponsorship contracts regarding commercial marking on the national team’s equipment, or the application of those rules, constitute a restriction under Article 36 EEA Agreement or the Services Directive.[9]

The second issue was whether such a restriction on an athlete’s right to enter into sponsorship agreements could be justified.

Prior control and consent for individual sponsorship contracts can constitute a restriction

Applicability of Article 36 EEA Agreement

The EEA Agreement’s free movement rules may also apply to the rules laid down by sports associations.[10] With reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s long-standing case law,[11] the EFTA Court has concluded that sport is subject to EEA law to the extent it constitutes an economic activity. Athletes’ sponsorship contracts entail marketing services, which constitute, as such, an economic activity.[12] The EFTA Court has also concluded that the cross-border element is present since the proposed sponsorship contract involved a Norwegian athlete and an Austrian company; and the professional competitions in which Kristoffersen participated took place in several EEA States.[13]

Next, the court has determined whether the present case concerns the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services. The court has stated that “the rules in question concern, at least predominantly, the freedom to provide services, as opposed to the freedom of establishment” since the NSF’s rules may grant or refuse permission to athletes to enter into individual marketing contracts, which will have an impact on Kristoffersen’s opportunities to provide marketing services. By contrast, the rules will not or only remotely, affect an athlete’s freedom to establish themselves as professional skiers, which is the activity from which their marketing activity derives.[14]

The prohibition of restrictions on the freedom of providing services

Article 36 EEA Agreement prohibits restrictions on the freedom of providing services within the EEA. Measures liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the EEA Agreements are an encroachment upon this freedom.

A system of prior control and consent for individual sponsorship contracts appears to make the exercise of Kristoffersen’s marketing activity less attractive. Under the EFTA Court’s settled case law, prior authorisation schemes amount to a restriction on the freedom to provide services.[15] However, this is ultimately for the referring court to determine.[16]

Justifications to restrictions

A restriction on the freedom to provide services (Article 36 EEA Agreement) may be justified on the grounds set out in Article 33 EEA Agreement[17] or by overriding reasons in the public interest, provided that it is appropriate to secure the attainment of the objective that it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it.[18]

Legitimacy of the aims pursued by the measures at issue

Aims of a purely economic nature, such as the desire to increase profits, cannot justify a restriction on the freedom to provide services. The aim of the measure in this case appears, however, to be related to ensuring a stable basis for the NSF’s activities. The court has found it relevant that the NSF is a non-profit sports association, that the marketing revenues are by far its most important source of income (71% of the NSF’s total income in 2015) and that the overall revenue is not only used for professional sports, but also for recruitment, education and children’s and reactional sports.

The EFTA Court has indicated – with reference to the CJEU’s Bernard judgment[19] - that the objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young athletes is legitimate. But, it is not sufficient for the restrictive measure to resort to a legitimate aim in general: it must be assessed whether the measure at issue actually pursues the invoked aim. The referring court must therefore identify, in the light of the facts of the case, the objectives that are in fact pursued by the contested measure.[20]

Suitability/Consistency

The party imposing the restriction must demonstrate that the measure is suitable to achieve the legitimate objective pursued along with genuinely reflecting a concern to attain that aim in a consistent and systematic manner.[21] The EFTA Court states that it is reasonable that some of the revenues are only dedicated to professional athletes, but that the income generated must also benefit the legitimate aims (such as recruitment, education, children’s and recreational sports).[22]

In this case, the EFTA Court has concluded that the rules on prior control and consent for individual sponsorship contracts, such as those laid down in the NSF Joint Regulations, are suitable to achieve that objective since a substantial part of the income is spent on the objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young athletes.[23]

Necessity

The referring court must also assess whether the measure goes beyond what is necessary to attain that objective. The necessity test implies that the chosen measure must not be capable of being replaced by an alternative measure that is equally useful but less restrictive to the fundamental freedoms of EEA law.[24] In this case, it must be assessed whether there are other less restrictive measures that would ensure a similar level of resources.[25]

The Court believes that the assessment of the system’s necessity must take account of the fact that the NSF and the athletes are mutually dependent on one another.[26] The system must ensure that the athletes receive a fair share of the revenues from sponsorship contracts. If not, that would constitute a disproportionate restriction on the athletes’ freedom to provide sponsorship services. The Court has argued that in this case it appears that revenue generated from marketing contracts constitutes the most important source of income for both the NSF and the athletes.[27] In addition to that, the Court has also taken into account that the NSF covers all the expenses of members of the Norwegian national alpine skiing team for approximately 200 days a year. Furthermore, the athletes may enter into individual sponsorship contracts with equipment providers in the NSF skipool without the NSF’s approval. Outside the NSF skipool, additional contracts may be entered into with the NSF’s approval.[28]

Kristoffersen concluded several of those contracts, which may have an impact on the assessment of the referring court about whether the athletes receive - through the system in place - a fair share of the revenue from the potential market for sponsorship contracts.[29]

C. Guidelines for concrete decisions and procedural aspects

A system of prior control and consent for individual sponsorship contracts may constitute a justified restriction on athletes’ freedom to provide sponsorship services, so long as it pursues a legitimate aim, is suitable and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the aim.[30]

While a system of prior control and consent for individual sponsorship contracts may be justified as such, it does not necessarily follow that every individual decision taken under that system is equally justified. Such individual decisions must pursue the legitimate aims of the system in a suitable and proportionate manner and there must be a fair balance between the interests of the NSF and the professional athletes.[31]

The existence, at the time of the athlete’s application for approval, of a collective sponsorship contract with the NSF’s main sponsor, Telenor, covering helmet and headgear, may be relevant to the assessment of whether the concrete refusal is justified. The assessment of proportionality may also include the issue of whether the NSF was aware of Kristoffersen’s intention to enter into a separate sponsorship agreement when NSF concluded its collective sponsorship contract, as well as the impact of such a collective sponsorship agreement on Kristoffersen’s ability to generate income from his profession. Furthermore, the referring court may also take account of the impact of individual sponsorship contracts on the NSF’s ability to achieve the legitimate aims invoked.

Besides that, the system and the decisions under a national sports federation’s approval scheme for individual marketing contracts may not be arbitrary and must satisfy certain procedural requirements (such as: the proper communication of an individual decision within a reasonable time; and a review of the decision before an independent body should be available).[32]

Striking the right balance between collective interests and individual ones can be difficult as the EFTA Court’s decision illustrates. Even though the EFTA Court sets out some key principles for evaluating advertising and sponsorship restrictions, it leaves the ultimate call for balancing those interests to the Oslo District Court.

Conclusion

The EFTA Court has drawn a clear ‘line in the sand’ for SGBs.

The Court’s ruling considers that a system of prior control and consent for athlete’s individual sponsorships, and potential refusal of such sponsorship, constitutes a restriction of the freedom to provide services, to the extent that the system makes less attractive the exercise of an athlete’s freedom to provide a marketing service. Such a restriction will be acceptable only if it pursues a legitimate aim, is suitable and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the aim.

Aims of a purely economic nature, such as the desire to increase profits, cannot justify such a restriction. The objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young athletes can however be a legitimate aim, to the extent that a substantial part of the income is indeed spent on encouraging the recruitment and training of young athletes. Also, a fair balance between the federation’s interests and the particular athlete’s interests is required. The EFTA Court considers that SGBs and athletes are often mutually dependent on one another. Athletes must receive a fair share of the revenues from sponsorship contracts. A decision to refuse an endorsement must be well-reasoned and communicated to the athlete within a reasonable timeframe. In addition, a review procedure before a body independent of the federation should be available.

In times where SGBs’ advertising and sponsorship restrictions are already under scrutiny from a competition law perspective,[33] the EFTA Court has added internal market arguments to the mix. Both the fundamental freedoms and the competition law arguments are likely to bolster individual athletes seeking to increase revenue from their sporting activities. The decision clearly indicates that SGBs should be careful when dealing with sponsorship deals.

At the same time, the ruling shows SGBs how to adopt sponsorship regulations that are the least likely to infringe EEA law. To justify restrictions, the SGBs will need to come up with a transparent, intelligent system in which restrictions are justified in view of (proven) redistribution of income to support the training of athletes and the funding of amateur sports. The presence of independent review procedures will be key. In that respect, the EFTA Court ruling may serve as ‘ammunition’ for those looking to increase transparency and good governance in the seat of SGBs.

[1] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 8.

[2] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 9-10.

[3] It follows from art. 200.3 and 204.1 of the FIS International Ski Competition Rules (joint regulations for alpine skiing), section 13-3(3) and chapter 14 of the Norwegian Olympic Committee’s Statutes, and Point 206.2.5 of the NSF Joint Regulations.

[4] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 17.

[5] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 19.

[6] Red Bull GmbH has its headquarters in Austria.

[7] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 20.

[8] Article 34 of the “Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice” foresees in the possibility for courts or tribunals in an EFTA State (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) to request the EFTA Court to give an advisory opinion on the interpretation of the EEA Agreement.

[9] Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on service in the internal market.

[10] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 68.

[11] See among others: CJEU 12 December 1974, n° 36-74, ECLI:EU:C:1974:140; Walrave and Koch/Union Cycliste International, par. 4; CJEU 14 July 1976, nr. 13/76, ECLI:EU:C:1976:115, Donà/Mantero, par. 12; CJEU 15 December 1995, n° C415/93, ECLI:EU:C:1995:463, ‘Bosman’, par. 73; CJEU 18 July 2006, n° C-519/04 P, ECLI:EU:T:2004:282, Meca-Medina and Majcen/Commissie, par. 37-44.

[12] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 66.

[13] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 67.

[14] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 69.

[15] EFTA Court 10 May 2016, Case E-19/15, ESA/Liechtenstein, par. 85.

[16] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 76.

[17] Article 33 EEA Agreement “The provisions of this Chapter and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action providing for special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.”

[18] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 114.

[19] CJEU 16 March 2010, n° C-325/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:143, Olympique Lyonnais

SASP/Olivier Bernard and Newcastle UFC, par. 23.

[20] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 117.

[21] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 118.

[22] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 119.

[23] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 120.

[24] EFTA Court, 16 May 2017, Case E-8/16 Netfonds Holding ASA, Netfonds Bank AS and Netfonds Livsforsikring AS/the Norwegian Government.

[25] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 122.

[26] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 124.

[27] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 124.

[28] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 125.

[29] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 125.

[30] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 125.

[31] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 127-128.

[32] EFTA Court 16 November 2018, Case E-8/17, Kristoffersen/NSF, par. 129-133.

[33] Cf. https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2017/21_12_2017_DOSB_IOC.html.