By a judgment of October 21, 2013, the Council of State annulled two decisions of the Appeal Chamber of the French Basketball Federation (FFBB), as well as two provisions of the General Regulations of this Federation, on the grounds that they disregarded the principle of individualization of penalties resulting from the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789.
Automatic suspension pronounced by the disciplinary bodies of the sports federation
A basketball coach was fined three "technical fouls", pronounced by the referees during 3 different matches. Pursuant to the provisions of article 613 paragraph 3a) of the General Regulations of the FFBB, the Appeals Chamber, by a decision of March 2, 2012, suspended the coach for a meeting.
After being sanctioned with a fourth "technical foul"during a new meeting, the Appeals Chamber, by a decision of October 5, 2012, suspended the coach, by application of article 613 paragraph 3b), for two new meetings.
The coach "successively presented, before the Administrative Court of Orléans, conclusions tending to the annulment for excess of power of the decision of the appeal chamber of the federation of March 2, 2012, conclusions tending to the annulment of the provisions of the paragraph 3 of article 613 of the general regulations of the federation and the conclusions directed against the second decision of the appeals chamber of October 5, 2012".
The President of the Administrative Tribunal referred the file to the Council of State.
Article 613 a) "A firm suspension from any function of a sports weekend is pronounced against any licensee who has been sanctioned with three unrelated technical and / or disqualifying faults during the same sports season and in any competition whatsoever. . The sports weekend of firm suspension is fixed by the competent disciplinary body (...) and which records the 3rd technical and / or disqualifying fault. The suspension is planned in such a way that it includes a match of the competition of the highest level for which the license holder has been sanctioned. (...)".
Article 613b) "A firm suspension from all functions of two sports weekends is pronounced against any licensee who has been sanctioned with a 4th unrelated technical and / or disqualifying fault, under the conditions specified above. (...)".
Principle of individualization of penalties: prohibition of "automatic penalties"
After recalling Article 8 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, the Council of State indicates that "le principle of individualization of sentences which follows from this article, if it cannot prohibit the laying down of rules ensuring an effective repression of offenses, implies that administrative sanction having the character of a punishment cannot be applied only if the competent authority expressly pronounces it, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case".
According to the judges, the suspension of a licensee constitutes a "sanction having the character of a punishment". However, the provisions of the FFBB Regulations"make the suspension automatic (...) without empowering the competent disciplinary body to rule on the actual attribution of technical faults nor allowing it to take into account the specific circumstances of each case".
Excess of power of the automatic suspension pronounced against the sports coach
Thus, the coach is justified in arguing that the provisions of the Federal Regulations "disregard the principle of individualization of sentences (...) and are, therefore, tainted with excess of providing".
The Council of State therefore annuls the 2 decisions of the Appeals Chamber of the FFBB as well as the provisions of article 613 paragraphs 3 a) and b) of the General Regulations of the FFBB.
"Considering that, therefore, by establishing an inability to exercise an elective public function for a period in principle at least equal to five years, automatically applicable to any natural person in respect of whom the personal bankruptcy has been declared , the prohibition provided for in article 192 of the law of 25 January 1985 or judicial liquidation, without the judge who decides on these measures having to expressly pronounce said incapacity, article 194 of this law disregards the principle of necessity penalties".
