The Court of Justice of the European Union has delivered a significant ruling in the long-running case involving former Juventus president Andrea Agnelli and former chief executive Maurizio Arrivabene, both of whom were sanctioned by Italian football authorities in connection with the artificial capital gains investigation that embroiled the club in 2022. The judgment, delivered today, does not exonerate the two former directors — but it establishes a crucial principle that reshapes how such sanctions may be imposed and challenged across European football.
The Background: From Capital Gains to a Luxembourg Courtroom
The origins of this case lie in the disciplinary proceedings launched by the FIGC’s Federal Prosecutor on 1 April 2022 against several Italian clubs — Juventus prominently among them — and their directors, on allegations of artificially inflating player valuations through a coordinated system of transfer deals designed to increase their book value. Agnelli and Arrivabene were both found to have participated in that system and were banned from all football-related activity within FIGC jurisdiction. FIFA subsequently extended those bans to the global level, preventing both men from holding any role within organised football anywhere in the world.
The sanctions were upheld by Italian sport’s justice bodies. The case then reached an Italian administrative court, which referred a series of questions to the European Court of Justice on whether such bans were compatible with EU law — and whether the Italian system of sport justice provided adequate judicial protection under European standards.
What the Court Has Ruled
The Luxembourg court’s judgment delivers two distinct and significant conclusions. On the substance of the sanctions themselves, the Court held that a worldwide ban on professional activity — which by definition restricts freedom of movement across all EU member states — can in principle be compatible with EU law, but only if it pursues a legitimate objective of general interest and respects the principle of proportionality. The Court identified the maintenance of financial integrity and the proper conduct of professional football competitions as objectives capable of justifying such restrictions.
Critically, however, the Court did not rule on whether Agnelli and Arrivabene’s specific bans were proportionate. That assessment is remitted to the Italian administrative court, which must now examine whether the prohibitions imposed on the two men meet the concrete criteria of transparency, objectivity, non-discrimination, and coherence with the broader objectives of the regulatory framework.
The Judicial Oversight Principle: The Heart of the Ruling
The second and arguably more consequential dimension of the ruling concerns the right to effective judicial protection. The Court was unambiguous: anyone subjected to a professional ban of this kind must have access to an independent court — one that is not merely empowered to award damages after the fact, but that has the full power to annul the sanction itself and, where necessary, to grant interim protective measures whilst proceedings are ongoing.
That court must be genuinely independent of the sporting organisations that imposed the original sanction, must be established by law, and must guarantee the full rights of the defence and the adversarial process. The European Court also clarified that its requirements do not demand a two-tier judicial process — a single independent court with genuine powers of review is sufficient. It will now fall to the Italian administrative court to determine whether the existing Italian sport justice system, or at least the final-instance body within it, meets those requirements as set out by Luxembourg.
What This Means for Agnelli, Arrivabene — and Football More Broadly
For Agnelli and Arrivabene personally, the ruling does not resolve their cases — it reopens the door to a national judicial process that must now be assessed against European standards. Should the Italian court conclude that the existing sport justice framework does not provide the judicial independence the European Court requires, the implications for how those bans were administered — and potentially for their continued validity — could be significant.
More broadly, the ruling carries considerable implications for how UEFA, FIFA, and national football federations across Europe impose and defend disciplinary sanctions. The expectation that significant professional bans can be insulated from genuine independent judicial scrutiny — a longstanding feature of the sport justice landscape in several countries — has been formally and authoritatively challenged. European football’s governing bodies will be studying the Luxembourg judgment with considerable attention.
