Short Reads

Augmentation du plafond salarial du sportif rémunéré

Augmentation du plafond salarial du sportif rémunéré

Augmentation du plafond salarial du sportif rémunéré

01.10.2015 BE law

La loi décrit le sportif rémunéré comme le sportif qui s'engage à se préparer ou à participer à une compétition ou à une exhibition sportive sous l'autorité d'une autre personne, en contrepartie d’une rémunération dépassant un certain montant.

Also available in Dutch.

Pour déterminer la rémunération du sportif, il faut tenir compte de sa rémunération fixe, et d’autres éléments liés à ses exhibitions sportives (primes en cas de victoire, indemnités de déplacement, la partie du prix du transfert d’un club à l’autre qui a été versée au sportif, etc.).

Après avis de la Commission paritaire nationale des Sports (CP 223), un arrêté royal du 2 juin 2015 porte le plafond de la rémunération à 9.600 euros pour la période allant du 1er juillet 2015 jusqu’au 30 juin 2016 inclus. En comparaison à la période 2014-2015, c’est une augmentation de 200 euros (Arrêté royal du 2 juin 2015 fixant le montant minimal de la rémunération dont il faut bénéficier pour être considéré comme sportif rémunéré, M.B., 15 juin 2015).

Le sportif rémunéré est « d’office » présumé lié par un contrat de travail d’employé. A ce titre, son club doit le déclarer à l’ONSS.

Les autres sportifs qui ne tombent pas sous la législation spécifique des sportifs rémunérés, mais qui sont liés par un contrat de travail doivent aussi être déclarés à l’ONSS en qualité de salariés.

Team

Related news

02.12.2021 NL law
Google Shopping: self-preferencing is a form of abuse of dominance

Short Reads - On 10 November 2021, the General Court (GC) almost entirely dismissed Google’s action against the European Commission’s Google Shopping decision. According to the European Commission (the Commission), Google illegally favoured its own comparison shopping service by displaying it more prominently in its search results than other comparison shopping services (see our July 2017 Newsletter). The Commission found that Google was abusing its dominant position and imposed a EUR 2.42 billion.

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Back to the future – Commission publishes roadmap for green and digital challenges

Short Reads - The Commission’s Communication “A competition policy fit for new challenges” (link) (the “Communication”) identifies key areas in which competition law and policy can support European efforts in dealing with the challenges of the green and digital transitions. The document covers all areas of competition law (antitrust, merger control, and State aid) and identifies various ways in which new and existing tools can contribute to addressing these challenges.

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Gun jumping: beware, the Commission will take action

Short Reads - The Commission has imposed interim measures on Illumina and GRAIL. These measures include the obligation to run GRAIL by independent management. By adopting interim measures in addition to opening an investigation into whether Illumina and Grail breached the standstill obligation, the Commission has made clear it will not shy away from tough action against gun jumping during an ongoing merger review. 

Read more

02.12.2021 EU law
ECJ: private enforcement in aviation sector also a national court's game

Short Reads - Recently, the ECJ ruled that national courts dealing with private enforcement cases are competent to apply EU competition law to historical behaviour in the aviation sector, regardless of public enforcement by the Commission and national competition authorities, and regardless of whether or not such authorities had authority to pursue public enforcement in the relevant period.

Read more

02.12.2021 NL law
Dominant firm may refuse to supply retailer after initial delivery

Articles - The Brussels Court of Appeal has held that a dominant producer firm may have valid reasons to refuse further supplies to a retailer, despite its dominance and despite previous deliveries. The Court of Appeal stressed the freedom for any company, including dominant firms, to choose their trading partners, in particular when there are valid and objective non-discriminatory reasons to refuse further direct supplies and when the retailer has alternative sources of supply.

Read more