Allen165
Key Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- English
- Home Country
- Canada
- Current Location
- Switzerland
"They submitted, among other things, that the CFI had misinterpreted the case law of the Court in holding that purely sporting rules generally fell outside the scope of Articles 39, 49, 81, and 82 EC and that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC."
Is it clear that "and that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC." is one of the Court's holdings and not what "they" submitted? If not, how should I make it clear?
Would the following be a possibility?
They submitted, among other things, that the CFI had misinterpreted the case law of the Court in holding (i) that purely sporting rules generally fell outside the scope of Articles 39, 49, 81, and 82 EC and (ii) that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.
Thanks a lot.
Is it clear that "and that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC." is one of the Court's holdings and not what "they" submitted? If not, how should I make it clear?
Would the following be a possibility?
They submitted, among other things, that the CFI had misinterpreted the case law of the Court in holding (i) that purely sporting rules generally fell outside the scope of Articles 39, 49, 81, and 82 EC and (ii) that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.
Thanks a lot.