Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities (C-519/04)
Judgment
Substance
The second plea
48

David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities (C-519/04)

Judgment of 18 Jul 2006law://eu/cjeu/2004/c-519-04/para_48@2026-11-12

48Rules of that kind could indeed prove excessive by virtue of, first, the conditions laid down for establishing the dividing line between circumstances which amount to doping in respect of which penalties may be imposed and those which do not, and second, the severity of those penalties.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Third Chamber
Case: C-519/04 · ECLI:EU:C:2006:492
Decided: 18 Jul 2006
Procedure: Action for annulment
Ruled invalid: 62002TJ0313
Applicants: David Meca-Medina; Igor Majcen
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Rapporteur: J. Malenovský
Advocate General: P. Léger
Bench: 5 judges
A. Rosas, J. Malenovský, J.-P. Puissochet, A. Borg Barthet, A. Ó Caoimh
Language: French
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62004CJ0519

Topics

Dominant position Freedom to provide services

History · 1 version

18 Jul 2006Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities (T-313/02)
Cited by 19: Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v Elliniko Dimosio (C-49/07); UL and SA Royal Antwerp Football Club v Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL (C-680/21); Olympique Lyonnais SASP v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle UFC (C-325/08)2 provisions; European Superleague Company, SL v Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) (C-333/21); CD Tondela – Futebol, SAD and Others v Autoridade da Concorrência (C-133/24)3 provisions; Em akaunt BG ЕООD v Zastrahovatelno aktsionerno druzhestvo Armeets AD (C-438/22); International Skating Union v European Commission (C-124/21 P)2 provisions; European Commission v Fútbol Club Barcelona (C-362/19 P); International Skating Union v European Commission (T-93/18); TopFit e.V. and Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V (C-22/18); „CHEZ Elektro Bulgaria“ AD v Yordan Kotsev and „FrontEx International“ EAD v Emil Yanakiev (C-427/16, C-428/16); Pfotenhilfe-Ungarn e.V. v Ministerium für Energiewende, Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein (C-301/14); API – Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Others (C-184/13, C-185/13, C-186/13, C-187/13, C-194/13, C-195/13, C-208/13); Consiglio nazionale dei geologi v Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato and Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato v Consiglio nazionale dei geologi (C-136/12)2 provisions; Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (Stim) v European Commission (T-451/08); Conseil national de l’Ordre des pharmaciens (CNOP) and Conseil central de la section G de l’Ordre national des pharmaciens (CCG) v European Commission (T-23/09)2 provisions; EMC Development AB v European Commission (T-432/05); AC-Treuhand AG v Commission of the European Communities (T-99/04); International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti (C-438/05)
Cites 11: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)4 provisions; Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman (C-415/93); J. C. J. Wouters, J. W. Savelbergh and Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, intervener: Raad van de Balies van de Europese Gemeenschap (C-309/99); Christelle Deliège v Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL, Ligue belge de judo ASBL, Union européenne de judo and François Pacquée (C-51/96, C-191/97); Gøttrup-Klim e.a. Grovvareforeninger v Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab AmbA (C-250/92); EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty; Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v Fédération royale belge des sociétés de basket-ball ASBL (FRBSB) (C-176/96); Gaetano Donà v Mario Mantero (13/76); Laurent Piau v Commission of the European Communities (C-171/05); David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities (T-313/02); B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v Association Union cycliste internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie and Federación Española Ciclismo (36/74)