哦，是嘛，那你为啥不截全捏？

103 It is sufficient to note that, although the rules in issue in the main proceedings apply also to transfers between clubs belonging to different national associations within the same Member State and are similar to those governing transfers between clubs belonging to the same national association, they still directly affect players'access to the employment market in other Member States and are thus capable of impeding freedom of movement for workers. They cannot, thus, be deemed comparable to the rules on selling arrangements for goods which in Keck and Mithouard were held to fall outside the ambit of Article 30 of the Treaty (see also, with regard to freedom to provide services, Case C-384/93 Alpine Investments v Minister van Financien [1995] ECR I-1141, paragraphs 36 to 38).

104所指的造成自由雇佣的阻碍，是指它讲欧共体成员国球员，认定为外援，
因而受到外援名额限制的影响

这不还是指的国籍问题嘛（在CBA就是省籍）

【 在 zyd 的大作中提到: 】
: 问题是法院管的就是你的注册规则，反而不管俱乐部的雇用呀
: 104 Consequently, the transfer rules constitute an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers prohibited in principle by Article 48 of the Treaty.
: 就是足联的转会规则造成了自由雇用原则的障碍，因此违法。
: ...................
--
FROM 114.254.27.*

可以讨论裁决一啊，那么裁决一说了啥？
“1. Article 48 of the EEC Treaty precludes the application of rules laid down by sporting associations, under which a professional footballer who is a national of one Member State may not, on the expiry of his contract with a club, be employed by a club of another Member State unless the latter club has paid to the former club a transfer, training or development fee. ”

看见这个字眼了么“be employed by a club of another Member State”
是“employed”不是“be registered ”

也就是俱乐部间（主要是新老俱乐部）的赔偿和支付纠纷，不影响球员受雇

也就是裁决1和2，是互为表里的，
1、是谈劳务合同，补偿和支付纠纷，不影响球员受雇（签劳务合同）
2、是谈注册权，欧共体球员，不被视为外援身份，因而不受到外援名额限制

劳务合同和注册权是分离的，
博斯曼法案完整的裁决，
是判决了俱乐部间的补偿纠纷，不影响球员的劳工流动自由（受雇or签合同）
但对联赛注册权的限制，则仅止步于欧共体球员不因国籍而受到外援名额限制


看明白，为啥在讨论中我始终强调注册权和合同权（受雇）是分离的么？

因为无论是在CBA还是在博斯曼法案体系下，这两者就是不打包的权力形式，
前者觉得你可以自由就业，
后者决定你联赛公司可以自主“雇佣”（注册），只要不产生法律意义上的歧视


周琦就是个典型案例，他完全可以被任何俱乐部雇佣包括cba俱乐部

但cba联赛公司，可以按照规则，以性别民族种族宗教以外（当然也包括省籍）拒绝他的注册

这是完全合法的，不仅合中国的劳动法，也和博斯曼法案不冲突

而周琦要求的，则是他即要受雇于CBA俱乐部，也要CBA联赛公司无条件接受他的注册

所以这事儿本质是要求强制“雇佣”，

即使在博斯曼体系下，他也解释不通







【 在 zyd 的大作中提到: 】
: 裁决书的主要裁决是合同到期球员的情况
: 国籍认定是顺带的次要裁决
: 因为写着次要裁决，所以主要裁决就不存在了？这就是你的逻辑？
: ...................
--
FROM 114.254.27.*

你是随便转了段英文就开始配中文么？
就你转的这段，那个字说注册权和合同权是互相包含的？

你加重的这段意思是，裁决在探讨罗马条约第48条是否排除了体育协会制定的规则

这个规则是
“under which a professional footballer who is a national of one Member State may not, on the expiry of his contract with a club, be employed by a club of another Member State unless the latter club has paid to the former a transfer, training or development fee.  ”
即，原有规则是两个俱乐部直接的补偿纠纷是可以影响球员受雇！受雇！受雇！

啥叫受雇，啥叫be employed，这不是劳务合同的签约权啊

这法院裁决的原始材料已经说的明明白白的了，

现成的原始资料不用，你要看百度岂不是莫名其妙么？

【 在 zyd 的大作中提到: 】
: 构成了妨碍就是违法的呀
: 前面给你说了法院定义了转会--就包含注册上场的权利
: 68 By its first question, the national court seeks in substance to ascertain whether Article 48 of the Treaty precludes the application of rules laid down by sporting associations, under which a professional footballer who is a national of one Member State may not, on the expiry of his contract with a club, be employed by a club of another Member State unless the latter club has paid to the former a transfer, training or development fee.
: ...................
--
修改:fromsky FROM 114.254.27.*
FROM 114.254.27.*

是你的理解力有问题，
什么叫受雇，“be employed ”叫受雇，
球员跟俱乐部之间的关系，叫“be employed ”
球员跟他比赛的联赛协会之间的关系叫“be registered ”注册，他不受雇于联赛协会

裁决第68小结通篇谈的都是规则与受雇之间的关系

在裁决全文中，但凡是提到了“be registered ”的问题，都是与国籍或欧共体成员国公民身份相关

而一个球员能不能上场，由受雇和注册这两个因素决定，

博斯曼裁决对这两个因素是分别作出规范的，

对受雇的影响是裁定新老俱乐部之间的经济补偿纠纷，不再影响球员受雇（be registered ）

对注册的影响，
是裁定欧共体成员国不被视为外援，而受到外援名额限制影响注册（be registered）


“On those grounds,

THE COURT,

in answer to the questions referred to it by the Cour d'Appel, Liège, by judgment of 1 October 1993, hereby rules:

1. Article 48 of the EEC Treaty precludes the application of rules laid down by sporting associations, under which a professional footballer who is a national of one Member State may not, on the expiry of his contract with a club, be employed by a club of another Member State unless the latter club has paid to the former club a transfer, training or development fee.

2. Article 48 of the EEC Treaty precludes the application of rules laid down by sporting associations under which, in matches in competitions which they organize, football clubs may field only a limited number of professional players who are nationals of other Member States.

3. The direct effect of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty cannot be relied upon in support of claims relating to a fee in respect of transfer, training or development which has already been paid on, or is still payable under an obligation which arose before, the date of this judgment, except by those who have brought court proceedings or raised an equivalent claim under the applicable national law before that date.”





【 在 zyd 的大作中提到: 】
: 你是英语有问题？
: 这段话重点是前半句
: under which代指那部分  rules laid down by sporting associations 足联制定的规则。
: ...................
--
FROM 114.254.27.*

“你的注册权影响了自由受雇了呀，法院建立了这个因果关系”

你的想象代替不了法院判决，

当然你相当然的理解也代替不了裁决的文本

裁决书所有注册相关的内容，都只关联的是国籍问题，

你翻了几天，甚至都没翻出一个能把employed和registered关联在一起的条目，

我想事实应该已经很清楚了


【 在 zyd 的大作中提到: 】
: 你的注册权影响了自由受雇了呀
: 法院建立了这个因果关系
: 是你自己看不懂
: ...................
--
FROM 114.254.27.*