WUSV – FCI Litigation in the European Union Courts
At the turn of the twenty first century Helmut Raiser had the audacity to rise up and challenge the SV by founding RSV2000 as his own national German Shepherd club. As a direct competitor this has struggled, but in the legal arena Dr. Raiser had vanquished the SV monopoly. The German and European courts found the SV in restraint of trade and affirmed the legal status of Riser's new club as identical to that of the SV. Today RSV2000 enjoys legal parity, that is has the same status relative to both the VDH and FCI. This has set a powerful and far reaching precedent, one with enormous implications for today. This is particularly pertinent in that both the FCI and VDH have been forced to recognize that two, or even more, breed specific clubs for one breed must be recognized and accommodated, which flatly contradicts the recent FCI demands that WUSV membership must be limited to only one member club per nation. It is difficult to imagine how this could stand up to legal scrutiny.
The SV and WUSV are apparently pursuing a similar legal strategy in their struggle with the FCI; that is they are challenging the concept of monopoly over the sale, registration and regulation of dogs and canine affairs generally as inherently contrary to the concept of the level commercial playing field, the very foundation of free enterprise. In doing so they are playing with fire, for the foundation of the SV doctrine for more than a century has been their legitimate right to control the evolution and integrity of the German Shepherd as a canine breed, essentially claiming a monopoly. But desperate times demand desperate measures: the arrogant and increasing pervasiveness of FCI control over international canine intercourse has posed an existential threat to the viability and even the existence of the SV and WUSV.
The details of the legal process remain a bit murky, but the likelihood is that while the legal basis of Riser's case was a more specific and limited German law the basis of the WUSV case is much more robust, based on European Union anti-cartel statutes with potentially much more severe repercussions for organizations and also individuals found in violation.
Furthermore, there is strong evidence that the FCI is aware of their culpability and vulnerability. This can be seen from the minutes of the FCI General Assembly 2017 and also minutes of the FCI General Committee 2016 & 2017 where it is clear that they know that the ban on international service of judges (included in their judge regulations) is contrary to European law. This would seem to indicate that the FCI Eurocrats have acted with arrogance rather than carelessness, thus strengthening the WUSV case and individual vulnerability.
---------------------------------------------------
FCI General Committee minutes 2016:
"5. Possibility to use a specific ruling of the FCI Show Regulations stating that FCI judges are allowed to officiate at FCI-sanctioned events only.
The General Committee has a long debate about that point. Their conclusion is that even though the Show Judges regulations prevent FCI judges from officiating at non-FCI events, this ruling could be challenged by any court for being against EU legislation. Consequently, the FCI Agility judges are not prohibited to officiate at non-FCI events. The matter will be referred to the FCI Show and Show Judges commissions and their regulations should be revised too.
DS suggests that all new judges could voluntarily sign an official commitment stating that they recognize the FCI as the only world canine federation with which they will cooperate.
A discussion starts about the behavior of some FCI judges on social media. This matter is already on the agenda of the next meeting of the show judge's commission.”
FCI General Committee minutes 2017:
"Proposals of the FCI Show and Show Judges commissions
To keep the prohibition for FCI judges to officiate at non-FCI events: the FCI Board is aware that it might create a legal problem but would like to keep the rules as they are.”
FCI General Assembly minutes 2017:
"2. Application of the penalties for FCI judges who are judging at events not recognized by the FCI
The FCI now has to wait for the 6-month termination notice. However, it is clear that it is against EU laws to prohibit a judge from officiating at dissident events. So, the proposal cannot apply to EU countries. The countries in the EU zone should not, in principle, be able to implement them. No vote is taken."
USCA Statement of Jan 27, 2020
Background and Reference:
GlossaryOrginizations and Conflicts
Legacy Lost, the Other Breeds
The Americans