The European Court of Justice has issued a landmark opinion that could significantly reshape the way sports justice operates across Europe, particularly in cases involving disciplinary sanctions imposed by sporting bodies.
The case stems from appeals lodged by former Juventus chairman Andrea Agnelli and former chief executive Maurizio Arrivabene, who challenged the 24-month bans handed to them by the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) following the club’s capital gains investigation.
The pair argued before Italy’s Regional Administrative Court (TAR) that the sanctions were unjust. Under current Italian legislation, however, ordinary courts are unable to overturn decisions made by sports tribunals or award compensation to individuals who believe they have been unfairly punished.
The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has now questioned that approach, stating that European Union law does not support legislation that prevents national courts from reviewing sporting sanctions that may be unlawful.
According to the opinion, individuals who are prevented from carrying out their profession for a prolonged period should have access to judicial review before a national court. The position effectively challenges the autonomy traditionally enjoyed by sports justice systems and could reduce the exclusive authority of sporting tribunals.
The Court of Justice of the EU ruled in a case brought by former Juventus president Andrea Agnelli that sporting sanctions with EU-wide effects must be open to review by an independent court, with the power to suspend or annul them where appropriate.https://t.co/dKXokrQ28N
— La Flamme Rouge (@laflammerouge16) July 16, 2026
Although the Advocate General’s opinion is not the Court’s final judgment, it is often influential and may shape the eventual ruling.
If adopted by the Court, the decision would represent a major shift in sports governance. Disciplinary rulings issued by sporting authorities could become subject to review by ordinary courts, providing athletes, officials and administrators with greater legal protections and stronger rights of appeal.
The case has also raised concerns over the independence of sports judicial systems. Judges in Luxembourg questioned the current process used to appoint and dismiss sports judges, noting that, in some federations, these appointments are made by the same officials whose decisions may later come under judicial scrutiny.
Critics argue that such arrangements could undermine the principle of judicial independence and the separation of powers, both of which are considered fundamental principles in democratic legal systems.
A final judgment from the European Court of Justice is still pending, but the case is already being viewed as one that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of sports justice throughout Europe.
