CJEU

On March 20, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled on the fairness, under EU consumer protection law, of a contractual clause allocating a percentage of an athlete’s income to a professional services provider (Case C‑365/23 [Arce]).  This ruling sets an important precedent and strengthens the protection afforded by consumer protection law to minors who enter into professional service contracts, whether in sport or elsewhere.

Background

The case was referred to the CJEU by a Latvian court.  It concerns a contract whereby a company undertook to provide career support services – including coaching, training, sports medicine, sports psychology, career guidance, club contracts, marketing, legal services, and accounting – to a basketball player, who was a minor at the time and therefore represented by his parents.  In exchange for the company’s services, the athlete agreed to pay 10% of any net income (plus VAT) he would receive over a period of 15 years from the signing of the contract.  At the time of signing the contract, the athlete was not a professional.  Some years later, however, he became a professional athlete.  When the athlete refused to pay the percentage to the company, the company sued him to enforce the contract.  The Latvian courts asked the CJEU, whether it could assess the fairness of this long-term financial commitment under the Latvian legislation implementing Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (“UCTD”).

Application of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive

Under the UCTD, a contractual clause in a business-to-consumer contract (not negotiated by the consumer) is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.  The CJEU ruled that the UCTD, as transposed into Latvian law, applies to the contract between the professional services provider and the athelete because the athlete was not yet engaged in professional sport at the time the contract was signed.  The status of “consumer” must be assessed at the time of the conclusion of the contract.  Consequently, the athlete was a “consumer” within the meaning of the UCTD.  The CJEU ruled that the UCTD applies even if the individual later embarks on a professional career.Continue Reading CJEU Rules on Fairness of Remuneration Clause in Sports Contract

On May 30, 2024, the European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) ruled that any button a consumer uses to order a service online must clearly indicate that the consumer commits to pay the price for the relevant service by affirmatively clicking on it. (Conny Case C-400/22) At issue was whether…

Continue Reading CJEU Clarifies Online “Order Buttons” Must Indicate that the Consumer is Assuming an Obligation to Pay

On October 26, 2023, the European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) decided that the GDPR grants a patient the right to obtain a copy of his or her medical record free of charge (case C-307/22, FT v DW).   As a result, the CJEU held that a provision under German…

Continue Reading CJEU Holds That GDPR Right of Access Overrules Local Laws

On February 9, 2023, the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) released two separate rulings on the dismissal of data protection officers (“DPOs”) under the German Federal Data Protection Law (“German DPL”) (C-453/21 and C-560/21).  The main question in both cases was whether Section 6(4) of the German DPL which permits the dismissal of a DPO with “just cause” is compatible with the GDPR.  In short, the CJEU (i) found that the provision was compatible with the GDPR because EU member states can use “just cause” as a threshold for dismissal as long as this does not undermine the objectives set for DPOs under the GDPR, and (ii) clarified the criteria EU member states should take into account to determine whether there is a conflict of interest.

The CJEU rulings concerned DPOs who were employed at German companies and dismissed “for just cause” from their respective DPO positions due to conflicts of interest concerns.  In one case, the DPO was simultaneously chair of the company’s works council.  In the other case, there was a perceived incompatibility with the DPO’s other professional responsibilities at the company (which the judgment does not disclose).  Importantly, the DPOs had not been dismissed because of the way they performed their duties and tasks as a DPO.

The term “just cause” is used in the German Civil Code to refer to situations where it cannot be reasonably expected for the employment contract to continue as normal, i.e., until the end of the notice period or until the agreed termination date, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case and weighing the interests of both parties.  This requirement goes beyond the provision in Article 38(3) GDPR, which provides that the DPO “shall not be dismissed or penalized by the controller or the processor for performing his tasks.”Continue Reading Court of Justice of the EU Clarifies Rules on Data Protection Officers’ Dismissal and Conflicts of Interest