this General Court of the European Union (TGUE) will hold a hearing this Tuesday. some partners Barcelona The question is that the European Commission did not consider them “interested parties” in signing the treaty Leo Messi for him PSG In August 2021 and therefore they do not consider it legitimate to file a complaint against the football player’s entry into the French club.
The hearing will begin at 9:30 am local time this Tuesday to hear the plaintiff (a few partners of the French-based Barcelona) and the respondent European Commission.
They stressed that the matter should be heard in the court of first instance. will not examine the issue of alleged state aid or the signing of the agreement. Leo Messihowever, it refers only to the definition of “interested party” as interpreted by the Commission.
The case dates back to 8 August 2021, when then-FCB football player Lionel Messi announced his departure from the club. and his recruitment by the Paris Saint-Germain Football Club (PSG).
On the same day, a complainant, identified in the case by the abbreviation WA, and an FCB partner who has been an FCB partner since March 3, 2020, filed a complaint with the European Commission. The existence of alleged illegal state aid to PSG, which would have made possible the recruitment of Messi.
Plaintiff WA furthermore Penya Barça Lyon: More than fans from Bron (France) (PBL) was integrated into the association’s network of supporters’ clubs and was established in Barcelona on 10 June 2019 with the aim of bringing FCB fans together. to share a common passion for the club and to promote love to other football fans of which WA is a member.
In September 2021, Brussels told WA that the information provided would not be recorded as a formal complaint, but only as general market information, as it was not submitted by an “interested party”.
The trial, which started this Tuesday before the TGUE, Appeal against this Commission decision by WA and PBL.
Essentially, the General Court is asked to decide whether the Commission is correct in assessing that PBL and WA are not “interested parties” and therefore do not have the power to raise the claim.
The applicants criticize the Commission in their petitions. ignoring the fact that the first claimant was a member (“partner”) of Football Club Barcelona and therefore they consider themselves competent to file a complaint about the alleged illegal aid.
The applicants also allege that there was a difference in the provisions of the Member States in this case, which distorted the conditions of competition in the internal market.
Specifically, according to the plaintiffs, the fact that the Spanish Professional Football League, unlike the French League, requires respect for the 70% ratio between salary costs and club income, constitutes a distortion that punishes FC Barcelona in practice.
The plaintiffs therefore ask the General Court to annul the decision of the European Commission DG Competition of September 1, 2021, and that the Federation Francesa de Fútbol “immediately” put an end to all regulatory distortions of competition” and that UEFA must comply with club licensing and financial fair play. Comply with the relevant Regulations.
They also ask that First-instance court files infringement action against France for illegal state aid to Paris Saint-Germain and ultimately refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
The applicants further requested that the Commission take interim measures against France in order to put an end to the “harm” they had suffered and to request the suspension of all regulatory decisions that had made possible the signing of Messi. as they claim, it creates an “unfair distortion of competition” and affects “domestic trade”, as can be read in the appeal.