92002E2133

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2133/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Discrimination against international football referees on grounds of age

The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) chooses referees for international football matches from a list compiled by the International Federation of Football Associations (FIFA). Article 4 of FIFA's rules for international referees stipulates that referees and their assistants must not be older than 45 on 1 January of the year in which they are appointed. Article 4 also stipulates that they must pass a fitness test and that national organisations are to give FIFA an indication of the quality of the referee or assistant referee concerned. Irrespective of the legal aspect of the matter, the point of having an

age limit is open to question if a referee is able to pass the physical fitness test and his performance is adequate. Amsterdam Court of Appeal has declared a similar age limit for professional referees illegal partly on this ground (Case no 1034/99, 13 January 2000). It is worth noting that this issue particularly concerns matches played in the EU with employees from the EU acting as referees or assistant referees.

1. Does not this discrimination on grounds of age violate European law, including Articles 13 and 136 of the Treaty?

2. Both EUFA and FIFA are based in Switzerland. Can UEFA justify its actions by invoking Swiss law and FIFA guidelines, despite the fact that UEFA decisions and policies have major consequences for an important sector of the economy in the EU?

3. To what extent is FIFA subject to the provisions of treaties between the EU and Switzerland?

Answer given by Mrs. Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2002)

Article 13 of the EC Treaty establishing the European Community enables the Council to take appropriate action to combat discrimination on a range of grounds, including age. Based on this article, Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(1) prohibits discrimination in employment on grounds of, inter alia, age and must be transposed into national law by 2 December 2003. In addition, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003 to implement the provisions of the Directive on age and disability discrimination. The prohibition of age discrimination laid down in the Directive has therefore not yet come into force in the Member States.

The Directive does not require the recruitment, promotion, maintenance in employment or training of an individual who is not competent, capable and available to perform the essential functions of the post concerned or to undergo the relevant training. Moreover, the Directive provides that there is no breach of the principle of equal treatment if the difference of treatment, on grounds of age, is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. The Directive goes on to provide a non-exhaustive list of examples of situations where such differences of treatment may be so justified, though none of these relates to the use of a blanket age limit as a guide to physical fitness or ability. The Commission believes that where a certain level of physical fitness is required to carry out a particular job, appropriate tests may be used in the selection of candidates. The use of fixed age limits could only be used where they were objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, be it physical fitness or any other. The justification would need to be assessed on a case by case basis.

The Court of Justice has made clear in previous rulings (e.g. Walrave [1974] ECR, 1405, para. 28) that Community law applies to the rules laid down by organisations based outside the Community when they take effect within the Community. The place where the Union or European Football Associations/International Federation of Football Associations (UEFA/FIFA) is based is not relevant in this respect.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.