Series
Blogs
State of play: What does the Seraing judgment say about arbitration and EU Law?
State of play: What does the Seraing judgment say about arbitration and EU Law?
10 September 2025
Series
Blogs
10 September 2025
In its recent ruling in Seraing (C-600/23) the CJEU returned to issues concerning the degree to which EU Member State courts must review arbitration awards for compliance with EU public policy. Although concerned with the very specific model of CAS arbitration imposed in the statutes of a sports association, there are some wider lessons and clarifications. We take a look.
Kick off: the background
RFC Seraing, a Belgian football club, had sanctions imposed on it by FIFA for allegedly breaching its rules prohibiting third party ownership of players’ economic rights. Seraing challenged that sanction in CAS arbitration (FIFA’s statutes require disputes between it and clubs to be so referred) alleging, amongst other things, that the sanctions infringed fundamental EU law; in particular three of the four freedoms of movement (people, services and capital), and EU competition law.
That was dismissed by CAS, and the Swiss Federal Supreme Court upheld the CAS decision (CAS being seated in Switzerland). Meanwhile, Seraing had also become involved in proceedings before the Belgian courts in which it also sought a ruling that the FIFA sanction was contrary to EU Law.
The Brussels Court of Appeal, however, dismissed this claim on the basis that, under Belgian national law, arbitral awards rendered abroad, such as the CAS award, have res judicata effect in Belgium without the need for prior leave for enforcement (exequatur) from the Belgian courts. Seraing appealed the case before the Belgian Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) which asked the CJEU whether the resulting impossibility of Seraing obtaining a review of the CAS award, by an EU Member State court, for its compatibility with EU law, was contrary to rights of effective judicial protection under EU law.
Blowing the whistle: the CJEU’s decision
Some general observations
In tackling the case, the CJEU first made a number of comments generally relevant to the relationship between arbitration and the requirements of effective judicial protection under EU law (stemming from the fact that arbitration tribunals cannot refer questions of EU law to the CJEU). Of particular note were its following observations:
Mandatory CAS arbitration under scrutiny
The CJEU then considered what effective judicial review of EU public policy requires in the particular context of the sports arbitration mechanism before it. It noted that the use of arbitration by international associations such as FIFA, to settle disputes between themselves and participants in the sport they oversee, is characterised, due to their statutes and powers, by a number of specific factors making the possibility of such review particularly important. Given the position of an association such as FIFA the mechanism was to be regarded as unilaterally imposed; this being closely linked to the fact that it applies to disputes between an association with unique and extensive oversight powers and a general group of persons subjected to them in pursuing their professional activities [90-96].
In this context, effective judicial review of an award therefore required:
As to the rule of finality/res judicata applied by the Belgian court to the CAS award in the case, that rule operated so as to prevent any possibility of obtaining such a review and, therefore, the Belgian court was bound to disapply it [110-111, 121]. Furthermore, the CJEU also expressed the view that any rule of finality/res judicata of national law was also not to be applied to such a CAS award unless it had first been subject to a review of compatibility with EU public policy by the courts of the relevant Member State. It reasoned that, in the present context, to otherwise confer such an award with such authority was itself inconsistent with the requirement of effective judicial protection [122-123]
Extra-time? What does this mean for arbitration, and the enforcement of awards, in the EU?
From a generalist position, the CJEU’s decision might be regarded as a score draw for arbitration. Some of the judgment valuably affirms orthodoxy; for example, confirmation that Achmea is to be kept to its boundaries. And, the indication that there is no per se issue with arbitration with a seat in a non-EU state is welcome (albeit the question whether, as in the earlier ISU case, such a choice might be regarded, in relevant circumstances, as aggravating an underlying breach of EU competition law, would seem to be a different point).
Furthermore, the CJEU’s general endorsement of the possibility of Member State court review of awards for compatibility with EU public policy is little surprise in the light of its earlier Eco-Swiss and Mostaza Claro rulings. But, the CJEU has also taken the opportunity to clarify that such a review doesn’t mean a full hearing, refused to expand it beyond rules of EU public policy, and read that concept relatively narrowly, albeit non-exhaustively. Conversely, pessimists may point to the potential for this to be defined on a case-by-case basis.
By contrast, the impact on the finality in the EU of CAS awards under imposed CAS sports arbitration may be significant; in particular the apparent requirement for effective public policy review before such an award can be regarded as final in a Member State. In that respect the material parts of the CJEU’s judgment refer only to such CAS awards and make specific reference to the particular characteristics, and context, of the form of arbitration in question. So, it would seem unwarranted to regard such a requirement as extending to the commercial context more generally (in which, in Eco Swiss, the CJEU has previously indicated that public policy review can be foreclosed by appropriate time bars). Again, however, pessimists may question where rooting distinctions in concepts such as “mandatory” arbitration may take the CJEU next.