Powerful, intuitive research tools for EU law
Your legal research stays yours.
No saving.
No tracking.
No training.
Not into AI? No problem.
EU law, connected.
900,000+
39,000+
100,000+
This visualization shows every judgment, order, directive, regulation, decision, and treaty that's ever been cited in a CJEU judgment. Each dot is a document, and documents that cite each other are pulled closer together. The blue dots are the most cited documents.
What it powers
Research assistant
It finds the authorities that matter to your question, traces a line of case law back to where it began, and maps the sources behind every research note: what each one cites, and what cites it.See the research assistantLegal propositions
Browse the legal rules stated across EU case law with the most-cited first, each linked to the judgment and paragraph that state it.See propositionsAnnotation layers
Every citation in a judgment links to what it cites, and every paragraph shows how often it has been cited since.See the annotation layersCase analysis
What it works out about each judgment (its parties, facts, legal questions and reasoning) becomes part of the graph, linked to the paragraphs it comes from and to the cases they cite.See the case analysis
More of EU law, all in one place.
57,000+
Every decision ever.*
49,000+
Every proceeding ever.*
900,000+
Citations, down to the paragraph.
110,000+
Legal propositions.
500,000+
Every official translation.
19,000+
Even orders.
Proceedings, by the year the case was brought
Cases with at least one judgment, order or opinion. Recent cases are mostly still pending.
Judgments, orders and opinions, by the year they were delivered
Including the Advocate General's opinions and views. 2026 is the year to date.
Counted on 13 November 2026. EUR-Lex: distinct CELEX numbers for judgments, orders and Advocate General opinions and views, from its public SPARQL endpoint, excluding summaries and information notes; its proceedings are the case numbers those CELEX numbers carry. Official Journal notices are excluded from both.
A responsible agentic research assistant that checks its own work.
- 01
Analyzes your question
It rephrases imprecise or under-specified questions, splits questions that have several parts, and asks you for clarification if it doesn't understand what you're asking. - 02
Makes a research plan
It decides how to search for sources to best answer your question. It can run semantic searches and keyword searches, look up cases and documents, and explore our knowledge graph. - 03
Searches, then searches again
It carefully evaluates the sources it finds against your question. If it doesn't have enough information to write a complete answer, it can write additional searches to fill in the gaps. - 04
Cites every sentence
It checks that every claim in every sentence of its answer has at least one valid citation — a specific paragraph of a specific document — and that the cited paragraph actually supports the claim. - 05
Revises its draft
If a claim doesn't have enough support, it'll revise its draft. If it can't find a source to back up a claim, it'll remove the claim and rewrite the surrounding text. - 06
Explains its limitations
It evaluates whether it's fully answered your question and notes where the evidence is stronger and where it's thinner. It rates its confidence in the answer and explains its reasoning.
- DeliègeC-51/96 · 2000
- Meca-Medina and Majcen v CommissionC-519/04 P · 2006
- Olympique LyonnaisC-325/08 · 2010
- European Superleague CompanyC-333/21 · 2023
- Royal Antwerp Football ClubC-680/21 · 2023
- DiarraC-650/22 · 2024
- Royal Football Club SeraingC-600/23 · 2025
Chosen from 36 sources considered. High confidence.
Safeguards and guardrails.
We don't try to guess.
We instruct the agent to ask for clarification if it isn't sure what you're asking.We try to back up claims.
We instruct the agent to remove any claims that aren't directly supported by the evidence it's found.We don't try to hide gaps.
We instruct the agent to honestly evaluate its own answer and clearly admit what it doesn't cover, where sources are thin, and where sources disagree.We're conservative.
We instruct the agent to discuss the limitations of its answer and to lower its confidence in its whole answer if it thinks even one aspect of your question isn't fully answered by the sources.We use official translations.
You can ask a question in any language and the agent will respond in the same language. But we instruct the agent not to translate the law. We show you official translations.We don't save your questions.
Your questions are your own business. We protect your privacy. We process your question to write an answer, and then we discard it. We never save your questions and we never link your questions to your account.
Start from the rule, not the case.
Sporting associations may enjoy legal autonomy to adopt rules concerning their competitions, but those rules must not limit the exercise of the rights and freedoms conferred on individuals by EU law.
Article 56 TFEU precludes rules that require associations responsible for football at world and European levels to give prior approval to the establishment of inter‑club competitions by third parties, or to control participation in such competitions, unless those rules provide substantive criteria and detailed procedural rules that ensure transparency, objectivity, non‑discrimination and proportionality.
A sporting activity that constitutes gainful employment or the provision of services for remuneration falls within the scope of the Community provisions on freedom of movement for persons and freedom to provide services.
AI-powered annotation over the text.
Citation highlighting
Citation notes
Content tags
Actor tags
Topic tags
Propositions
Judgments can be really dense. We make it easier to get your head around them.
European Superleague Company (C‑333/21)
The parties
AI European Superleague Company SL was established in Spain as a company governed by private law. It pursued the objective of setting up a new international professional football competition known as the “Super League”. A22 Sports Management SL described itself as a company established to provide services related to creating and managing professional football competitions, more specifically the Super League project.
The project
According to the Madrid court, the founding professional football clubs of European Superleague Company SL intended to establish a new international football competition involving 12 to 15 permanent-member clubs and an undefined number of qualified clubs. European Superleague Company SL based the project on a shareholder and investment agreement. That agreement provided for contracts binding participating or eligible professional football clubs and three companies established or to be established by European Superleague Company SL. Those contracts provided for the clubs to assign their media or commercial rights to European Superleague Company SL in return for remuneration.
Funding and recognition
According to the Madrid court, JP Morgan AG undertook to give European Superleague Company SL financial support and an infrastructure subsidy through a bridging loan of up to approximately EUR 4 billion. The agreement made the establishment of the Super League and the provision of its necessary funds subject to recognition by FIFA or UEFA, or legal protection from the competent authorities. It also provided for FIFA and UEFA to be informed of the project.
Opposition to the project
European Superleague Company SL brought a commercial action against FIFA and UEFA before the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Madrid (Commercial Court, Madrid, Spain). According to the Madrid court, FIFA and UEFA opposed the Super League project after it was launched. On 21 January 2021, FIFA and the six continental confederations recognised by FIFA issued a statement refusing to recognise the Super League. They said that clubs and players taking part would be expelled from FIFA and UEFA competitions. On 18 April 2021, UEFA, the English, Spanish and Italian football associations, and certain professional leagues issued a press release stating that the clubs concerned would be banned from other competitions and that their players could be denied representation of their national teams.
Measures by Madrid court
On 19 April 2021, the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Madrid held European Superleague Company SL’s action admissible. The following day, it ordered protective measures preventing FIFA and UEFA from thwarting or hampering the preparation and establishment of the Super League. The Madrid court stated that FIFA and UEFA held an economic and commercial monopoly over organising and marketing international interclub football competitions and exploiting related rights. It also stated that they exercised regulatory, control, decision-making and sanctioning powers over football stakeholders.
The relevant rules
According to the Madrid court, FIFA and UEFA’s rules made organising and marketing interclub football competitions subject to their prior approval. FIFA’s rules also required approval for forming international leagues or similar groups of clubs or leagues, and for matches or competitions before they took place. The rules further required approval for sporting contacts involving players or teams affiliated to FIFA or UEFA member associations. FIFA and UEFA also reserved the exclusive power to authorise broadcasts of matches and events involving interclub football competitions. The Madrid court found that these rules were not placed within a framework of substantive criteria and detailed procedural rules ensuring transparency, objectivity and non-discrimination.
The reference
The Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Madrid stayed the proceedings and referred questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The President of the Court later rejected the request for the expedited procedure. The Court of Justice was therefore asked to give a preliminary ruling on the questions referred by the Madrid court; the facts provided do not state the wording of those questions.
A shortened demo of LawLibrary.AI's analysis of European Superleague Company (C-333/21), generated by AI. Open the judgment to see all of it.
Open the judgment- Answers with citationsAsk in plain language. Every claim in the answer carries a citation, and every citation opens the paragraph it was drawn from.
- Case analysisThe facts, the legal questions, the chains of reasoning and a legal commentary for any judgment, on demand, each tied to its paragraphs.
- AI annotationsHighlight and link every citation in the text, see how often each paragraph has been cited, surface the proposition each one states, and tag the text by content, actor and topic.
- PropositionsStart from the rule rather than the case. Browse the legal propositions stated across EU case law, classified across 25 areas of law.