- 主题:一次非完全倒逼造就了中国篮球的里程碑时刻
可以自由转会,但你要求是强制雇佣啊?
原本CBA联赛公司就跟球员之间没有合同关系,它提供的是符合要求球员的注册权管理
而你要求CBA对于不符合自己注册规则的球员,也要允许注册
否则你就说这事儿法理上不合理,
那劳动法给你了,你又找不到为什么CBA按照自己的要求注册球员是不合法
然后,你又说这事儿不够博斯曼,硬说博斯曼即管合同和注册权是一体的诉求,
但是博斯曼裁决全文也贴给你了,
里面实际写的很清楚,合同和注册是两个诉求,注册部分是针对国籍歧视的,
是认定在欧共体条约之下,
如果将欧共体成员认定为外援而限制注册,这是违约的
换句话说,
即使是博斯曼裁决,它对于注册制约和主张也仅仅是,
要求欧共体成员国内部(相当于CBA的国内各省球员)不受国籍球员注册名额限制
他并不认定各联赛不能按照自己的规则进行注册,
这就正如CBA在不产生民族、种族、宗教、性别歧视的前提下),完全有权力自己定义球员注册的规则,以及认定那些球员可以参加自己的联赛活动
你所谓博斯曼对注册权的限制,完全是你想当然的一种幻想嘛
【 在 zyd 的大作中提到: 】
: i和ii是两个不同诉求呀
: 你没看懂i?i说了外国吗?
: 或者这么多年你听说,欧洲足球无合同球员只能自由转会外国,不能自由转会本国的案例?
: ...................
--
FROM 114.254.27.*
雇佣与否是俱乐部决定的
联盟又不直接雇佣
欧盟法院就是判的这个呀
你联盟(对应cba公司)制定的注册规则不能与俱乐部自由雇佣抵触。
没有俱乐部愿意雇用那球员没办法,只要有俱乐部愿意雇用
足联必须给注册和让参加职业比赛
5. Rules governing business relationships between employers in a sector of activity fall within the scope of the Community provisions relating to freedom of movement for workers if their application affects the terms of employment of workers.
That is true of rules relating to the transfer of players between football clubs which, although they govern the business relationships between clubs rather than the employment relationships between clubs and players, affect, because the employing clubs must pay fees on recruiting a player from another club, players'opportunities for finding employment and the terms under which such employment is offered.
法院直接说的是 法院尊重企业的自由,但是这里雇员的自由高于联盟的自由
79 As regards the arguments based on the principle of freedom of association, it must be recognized that this principle, enshrined in Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, is one of the fundamental rights which, as the Court has consistently held and as is reaffirmed in the preamble to the Single European Act and in Article F(2) of the Treaty on European Union, are protected in the Community legal order.
80 However, the rules laid down by sporting associations to which the national court refers cannot be seen as necessary to ensure enjoyment of that freedom by those associations, by the clubs or by their players, nor can they be seen as an inevitable result thereof.
81 Finally, the principle of subsidiarity, as interpreted by the German Government to the effect that intervention by public authorities, and particularly Community authorities, in the area in question must be confined to what is strictly necessary, cannot lead to a situation in which the freedom of private associations to adopt sporting rules restricts the exercise of rights conferred on individuals by the Treaty.
法院认为原有的转会规则阻碍了雇员自由移动
92 It is thus necessary to consider whether the transfer rules form an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers prohibited by Article 48 of the Treaty.
93 As the Court has repeatedly held, freedom of movement for workers is one of the fundamental principles of the Community and the Treaty provisions guaranteeing that freedom have had direct effect since the end of the transitional period.
98 It is true that the transfer rules in issue in the main proceedings apply also to transfers of players between clubs belonging to different national associations within the same Member State and that similar rules govern transfers between clubs belonging to the same national association.
这条明确写明了 法院法条同样适用于同一国家不同组织以及同一组织的俱乐部
【 在 fromsky 的大作中提到: 】
: 可以自由转会,但你要求是强制雇佣啊?
: 原本CBA联赛公司就跟球员之间没有合同关系,它提供的是符合要求球员的注册权管理
: 而你要求CBA对于不符合自己注册规则的球员,也要允许注册
: ...................
--
修改:zyd FROM 222.212.202.*
FROM 222.212.202.*
没错,是这样啊,但这跟我在前面解释的注册与合同的关系有什么不同么?
我一直在说CBA联赛公司的注册权,和球员的雇佣合同,是两个东西,
所以从规则上CBA联赛公司,管注册,但它根本就不管你被谁雇佣
因而周琦可以被任何俱乐部雇佣包括CBA俱乐部,
但是你能不能在cba注册,或者通俗点你能不能去参加CBA联赛公司的赛事活动,那要看你符合不符合CBA的注册规则
这是根本逻辑,这个逻辑在CBA是如此,实际上博斯曼裁决也是如此,
它对注册权使用的限制,是有限限制,不是无限限制,
你说的
“欧盟法院就是判的这个呀,你联盟(对应cba公司)制定的注册规则不能与俱乐部自由雇佣抵触。 ”
但裁决中讲的很明白,它这个自由雇佣,是指欧共体条约48条2款所规定,
即不能用注册权的外援名额限制去限制欧盟球员,也就是欧盟球员等同于本土球员
而不是说,联赛无权决定谁能注册的无限雇佣自由
这点对应中国劳动法的是,你不能用省籍,把其他省球员当成外援,而这个问题在中国根本不存在,都没必要整个博斯曼裁决才能成规矩,
说难听点,需要博斯曼裁决才能保证省籍球员注册自由,那对CBA是开倒车
只要你满足,不发生劳动法第十二条所列民族宗教种族性别之就业歧视,
则你的注册权限制,完全合法
就这么简单的道理
【 在 zyd 的大作中提到: 】
: 雇佣与否是俱乐部决定的
: 联盟又不直接雇佣
: 欧盟法院就是判的这个呀
: ...................
--
修改:fromsky FROM 114.254.27.*
FROM 114.254.27.*
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。
【 在 fromsky 的大作中提到: 】
: 没错,是这样啊,但这跟我在前面解释的注册与合同的关系有什么不同么?
: 我一直在说CBA联赛公司的注册权,和球员的雇佣合同,是两个东西,
: 所以从规则上CBA联赛公司,管注册,但它根本就不管你被谁雇佣
: ...................
--
FROM 222.212.202.*
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.*
因为这条说的是不能和另一个判例比较。
你不想想
博斯曼是因为被法国足协认定为外援所以没有转会成功敦刻尔克的吗?根本不是
博斯曼的主诉求是 合同到期,收到了敦刻尔克的offer,不应该被足联因为培养费转会费的原因阻止自由转会。 外援认定是附带诉求。博斯曼根本没到被认定为外援那一步。
【 在 fromsky 的大作中提到: 】
: 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,
: ...................
--
修改:zyd FROM 222.212.202.*
FROM 222.212.202.*
我想它干啥……
我即没有必要,也没有义务去揣测博斯曼的主诉求,
既然裁决书上明明写着不正确的国籍身份认定,限制了自由流动,
那这白纸黑字的我不信,
你要我自己跑去胡思乱想,这不有毛病么
【 在 zyd 的大作中提到: 】
: 因为这条说的是不能和另一个判例比较。
: 你不想想
: 博斯曼是因为被法国足协被认定为外援所以没有转会成功敦刻尔克的吗?
: ...................
--
修改:fromsky FROM 114.254.27.*
FROM 114.254.27.*
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?
这才是博斯曼法案的主要判决:
欧洲法院维护了最初的判决,规定运动员可以不向原来的俱乐部交钱就可以自由转会。同时,列日俱乐部赔偿博斯曼42.6万英镑的经济损失。从此以后,博斯曼法案在欧盟国家全面实施。
【 在 fromsky 的大作中提到: 】
: 我想它干啥……
: 我即没有必要,也没有义务去揣测博斯曼的主诉求,
: 既然裁决书上明明写着不正确的国籍身份认定,限制了自由流动,
: ...................
--
修改:zyd FROM 222.212.202.*
FROM 222.212.202.*
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.*
法院不是你这么解释的呀
100 Since they provide that a professional footballer may not pursue his activity with a new club established in another Member State unless it has paid his former club a transfer fee agreed upon between the two clubs or determined in accordance with the regulations of the sporting associations, the said rules constitute an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers.
the said rules 就是之前足联规定的满足转会注册的规则
还有其他的地方,把足联注册转会这一套全部分析了一遍
法院又不像你这么傻,法院认为只要建立因果关系,就是阻碍
你的注册权只要最终影响了俱乐部的自由转会的雇用
那就是不合法的
你没发现你和事实的矛盾?
按你说的欧洲足球一样有注册权,那博斯曼法案有什么用?
不给他们注册就是了?
法院是傻瓜?
【 在 fromsky 的大作中提到: 】
: 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”
: ...................
--
修改:zyd FROM 222.212.202.*
FROM 222.212.202.*