On March 20, 2025, the Courtroom of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) dominated on the equity, below EU shopper safety regulation, of a contractual clause allocating a proportion of an athlete’s earnings to an expert providers supplier (Case C‑365/23 [Arce]). This ruling units an necessary precedent and strengthens the safety afforded by shopper safety regulation to minors who enter into skilled service contracts, whether or not in sport or elsewhere.
Background
The case was referred to the CJEU by a Latvian court docket. It considerations a contract whereby an organization undertook to offer profession help providers – together with teaching, coaching, sports activities drugs, sports activities psychology, profession steering, membership contracts, advertising, authorized providers, and accounting – to a basketball participant, who was a minor on the time and subsequently represented by his dad and mom. In alternate for the corporate’s providers, the athlete agreed to pay 10% of any internet earnings (plus VAT) he would obtain over a interval of 15 years from the signing of the contract. On the time of signing the contract, the athlete was not an expert. Some years later, nonetheless, he turned an expert athlete. When the athlete refused to pay the proportion to the corporate, the corporate sued him to implement the contract. The Latvian courts requested the CJEU, whether or not it may assess the equity of this long-term monetary dedication below the Latvian laws implementing Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair phrases in shopper contracts (“UCTD”).
Software of the Unfair Contract Phrases Directive
Beneath the UCTD, a contractual clause in a business-to-consumer contract (not negotiated by the patron) is unfair if it causes a big imbalance within the events’ rights and obligations below the contract, to the detriment of the patron. The CJEU dominated that the UCTD, as transposed into Latvian regulation, applies to the contract between the skilled providers supplier and the athelete as a result of the athlete was not but engaged in skilled sport on the time the contract was signed. The standing of “shopper” should be assessed on the time of the conclusion of the contract. Consequently, the athlete was a “shopper” inside the which means of the UCTD. The CJEU dominated that the UCTD applies even when the person later embarks on an expert profession.
Assessing the Unfairness of the Contractual Time period
A key side of the ruling was whether or not the Latvian court docket may assess whether or not the clause requiring the athlete to pay 10% of his internet earnings to the skilled providers supplier was “unfair” below the UCTD as applied in Latvia. In precept, the UCTD doesn’t enable courts to evaluate the equity of clauses referring to the value and remuneration of services or products, except such clauses should not in “plain intelligible language”. Nevertheless, the UCTD permits Member States to offer shoppers with a better degree of safety than the UCTD. Due to this fact, the Latvian regulation, which permits courts to evaluate the equity of worth and remuneration clauses no matter whether or not they’re written in “plain intelligible language”, isn’t in breach of the UCTD.
Whereas it’s for the Latvian court docket to evaluate the “equity” of the clause, the CJEU concluded that the clause wouldn’t be unfair merely as a result of it didn’t set up a hyperlink between the worth of the service supplied and its price to the athlete. Specifically, the CJEU clarified that the existence of an imbalance between the rights and obligations of the events should be assessed by bearing in mind the next parts: (i) the foundations of nationwide regulation that might apply within the absence of the contract; (ii) honest and equitable practices on the time of the conclusion of the contract; (iii) all of the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the contract (together with whether or not the patron acquired the data essential to allow her or him to evaluate the monetary penalties of any dedication undertaken); and (iv) the opposite phrases of the contract and another associated contracts. Specifically, the CJEU emphasised that nationwide courts should have in mind the rights of the kid below Article 24(2) of the EU Constitution of Elementary Rights when assessing unfairness. The very best pursuits of the kid should even be a major consideration in contractual issues.
Lastly, the CJEU dominated that if the Latvian court docket finds that the clause is unfair, it should annul it as if it had by no means existed. However, it could not scale back the quantity payable by the patron to the prices truly incurred by the skilled service supplier.
* * *
Covington & Burling frequently advises firms on all features of EU shopper safety regulation, in addition to intersections with privateness, cybersecurity, and product security legal guidelines. We’re comfortable to help you with any inquiries associated to compliance with EU shopper safety regulation.
This weblog submit was written with the contributions of Alberto Vogel.
