The Deutsche Handballbund e. V., the national sports association for handball in Germany and organiser of the Federal German Handball league, issued Mr Kolpak with a licence marked with the letter "A" on account of his foreign nationality.

According to the rules of the Deutscher Handballbund, a maximum of two players with licences bearing such a mark may be used in teams playing in championship and cup matches in the Federal and Regional leagues.

Mr Kolpak applied for a licence without a reference to his foreign nationality because he took the view that the prohibition of discrimination contained in the EU-Slovakia Agreement meant that he was entitled to play without any restriction.

The Oberlandesgericht Hamm, the court before which the dispute came on appeal, stayed the proceedings and referred the matter to the European Court of Justice. It wishes to know whether the requirement in the EU-Slovakia Agreement that Slovakian workers lawfully employed in a Member State be treated the same as that State's own nationals (prohibition of discrimination), prohibits a rule by a sports association under which clubs may only use a limited number of players from States (outside the European Economic area) in particular matches.

Adocate General Stix-Hackl is giving her opinion today.

The Opinion of the Advocate General is not binding on the Court. It is the role of the Advocates General, acting with complete independence, to propose to the Court a legal solution to the cases assigned to them.

First of all, the Advocate General, referring to the most recent case-law (Case C-162/00 Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer, Judgment of 29 January 2002), notes that because of the clarity and unconditional terms of the prohibition of discrimination against Slovak workers, the provision at issue, Article 38(1) of the Agreement, is directly applicable and Slovak nationals may rely on it.

The Advocate General also refers to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, according to which the parallel provisions of the EC Treaty (freedom of movement for workers) applies not only to the action of public authorities but extends also to rules of any other nature aimed at regulating gainful employment and the provision of services in a collective manner, such as rules of a sports association.

This interpretation is also applicable to Article 38 of the EU-Slovakia Agreement, because that Article pursues the same purpose as the corresponding provision in the EC Treaty.

Mr Kolpak is covered by the Agreement, because he is residing lawfully in Germany on the basis of his residence permit and is a worker.

Finally, the Advocate General examines whether the limitation, in the rules, on the numbers of players from States (outside the European Economic area) represents a barrier to the freedom of movement for such workers. She concludes that it is precisely participation in championship and cup matches of the Federal and Regional leagues which is an essential aim of a professional sportsman's employment and that, as there is no provision for a restrictive rule of that type for nationals of EEA-Contracting Parties and EC citizens, there is discrimination against Slovak nationals.

Referring to the judgment in Bosman, the Advocate General expresses the view that the rule cannot be justified on sporting grounds either.

Note: the judges of the Court of Justice of the EC now begin their deliberation in this case. The judgment will be delivered at a later date.