Your Honour/Honourable members of the Court, my name is Olivia Coffeng and I will appear for the

applicant.

If it pleases the Court, I would like to invoke the defendant’s argument regarding the qualification of the
High5 as an association of undertakings.
The defendant argued that snowboarding associations do not engage in an economic activity and can
therefore not be qualified as an undertaking.
First, I would like to argue that snowboarding associations do in fact engage in an economic activity. I
would like to take FIS as an example. FIS is the international ski and snowboard federation. They
organise various ski and snowboarding tournaments, just like the High5 association does. FIS is
comprised of National Ski and Snowboarding Associations. FIS has an annual income of 47 million
Swiss Francs. This illustrates that such snowboarding associations are engaged in offering services on a
market and that this activity is profitable.

[Therefore, I argue that the High5 association does in fact engage in an economic activity and can be
qualified as an undertaking.]

[However, if your Court does not agree with this. I would like to point out the Pavlov case. In this case
Your Court established that an entity does not have to make profit in order to be considered an
undertaking. It is merely required that the activity that’s carried on by the High5 association can in theory
make profit. With the given example, I’ve proven that this is the case.]

Second, I would like to point out the case Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) vs
Elliniko Dimosio. This case regards a non‐profit‐making association, whose object is the organisation of
motorcycling competitions in Greece.

In paragraph 53 your court states: "that a legal person whose activities consist not only in taking part in
administrative decisions authorising the organisation of motorcycling events, but also in organising such
events itself and in entering, in that connection, into sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts,
falls within the scope of Articles 82 EC and 86 EC."

In conclusion, underwritten by the foregoing arguments, the applicant argues that the High5 association is
considered an association of undertakings.

I would like to thank you for your attention, and I now turn over to my co-counsel.

(Geen tijd meer voor. Kan ik wel vraag over stellen als zij het in hun verhaal noemen)

The defendant also mentions the Case Walrave and Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale in
their pleading. In this case your Court established that “the practice of sports is subject to community law
only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity.”
As proven by my previous example; the activities of sport associations are unquestionably economic
activities. Sport is not just an economic activity, but big business, by some estimates accounting for
almost 4% of European GDP.

The defendant mentioned the Donà v Mantero case to argue that the formation of teams is purely a
sporting matter. That case concerned the formation of a football team. The matter here today concerns a
snowboarding association that organises tournaments with prize money and entry fees. This is a
completely different matter, therefore Donà v Mantero is not relevant for this case.