Thursday , October 6 2022

The trial of Henrik Kristoffersen against the Norwegian Ski Federation – Fortunately, there is no support to Henrik Kristoffersen from the EFTA Court


HENRIK CRISTOFFERSEN does not receive essential assistance from the EFTA Court in an attempt to secure private sponsorship contracts with a national team. The court said today that this is a legal issue that should be solved in Norwegian courts and that it gave the Norwegian sport the right to have a sponsor a monopoly if it was founded for reasons of public interest.

This means that Oslo Tingrett is free to refuse Kristoffersen's claim if Norway argues that the commercial rights of the Skiforbund are not a limitation. So, the Norwegian ski federation made him unfair when the star climber, two years ago, refused to make Red Bull a private sponsor at the helm.

However, given that the EFTA Court does not declare itself a market monopoly as a restriction, this decision is also an important main win for all European sports.

FOR In reality, the role of sports solidarity was at stake. The fact that a special federation can set common advertising rules that allow the sport to introduce a monopoly over the sponsorship income for use by all members of the sport. The exclusive rights of sports to the market laws of land laws are therefore important for general reasons

Where Henrik Kristoffersen's claim that his private sponsor of the Red Bull on the helmet at the starting point was justified by the right to have the same conditions as the alpine legend Aksel Lund Svindal, the conflict developed into a basic solution:

  • What is a sports advertising monopoly on national equipment in fact legal?

This essential question arose through the resolution of this dispute in Oslo Tingrett, and paid attention to the struggle of increasing attention.

YES The case stopped at a district court in March, the battle between Henry Kristoffersen and the Ski Federation was suddenly far more than a national sports event. As the judge sought advice from the EFTA on the rules of the United Kingdom on the violation of EU rules on free competition, as regulated by the so-called " With the Services Directive, this dispute was of great European significance:

  • Whether Henrik Kristoffersen finally won a request for private sponsorship rights on the equipment of the Norwegian team, could change the prerequisites for all market rights in the EU sport.

This was the reason why not only the Norwegian government on its way provided the EFTA Court. Sweden and the Netherlands are also worried that a legal decision in this case will destroy the sport's ability to have a central financing model in which different sports federations retain their market rights.

IT- The most sensible thing in this case is that Henrik Kristoffersen has demanded a refund of 15 million Norwegian Norwegian ski federations for lost sponsorship opportunities:

  • In reality, he wants to get money from his own colleagues in the alpine team.

Where it is easy to understand that sports professionals may want to assess the right to own income, these claims are very problematic. This only affects the ski environment in which Henrik will work for years to come, and will likely take resources from his related colleagues.

If, therefore, he agreed, when the trial continued at Oslo Tingrett in the spring.

HOW Fortunately, after this statement, the EFTA Court does not work. In principle, a number of legal concerns about Norwegian obligations under the EEA Agreement is crucial for our courts. This means that this decision to non-sports monopoly violates the EU Services Directive is likely to secure the common rights of the joint venture. Then the request will also be canceled.

Henrik needs to ensure that this basic battle becomes as many people as possible.

Like Dagbladet Sport on Facebook

Source link