CAS 2013/A/3258 Besiktas Jimnastik Kulübü V. UEFA
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CAS 2013/A/3258 Besiktas Jimnastik Kulübü v. UEFA ARBITRAL AWARD rendered by the COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT sitting in the following composition: President: Mr Fabio Iudica, attorney-at-law in Milan, Italy Arbitrators: Prof. Dr Martin Schimke, attorney-at-law in Düsseldorf, Germany Mr Efraim Barak, attorney-at-law in Tel Aviv, Israel Ad-hoc clerk: Mr Serge Vittoz, attorney-at-law in Lausanne, Switzerland in the arbitration between Besiktas Jimnastik Kulübü, Istanbul, Turkey Represented by Messrs Amr Abdelaziz and Philipp J. Dickenmann, attorneys-at-law in Zurich, Switzerland - Appellant - and Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), Nyon, Switzerland Represented by Dr Jean-Marc Reymond, attorney-at-law in Lausanne, Switzerland and Mr Adam Lewis Q.C. in London, United Kingdom - Respondent - (together referred to as the “Parties”) CAS 2013/A/3258 Besiktas Jimnastik Kulübü v. UEFA - page. 2 INTRODUCTION 1. This appeal is brought by Besiktas Jimnastik Kulübü (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”, “the Club” or “Besiktas”), against a decision of the Appeals Body (hereinafter also referred to as “the UEFA AB”) of the Union Européene des Associations de Football (hereinafter referred to as “UEFA”) dated 11 July 2013 (hereinafter also referred to as “the Appealed Decision”) excluding Besiktas from the UEFA Europa League 2013-2014, as a result of the alleged implication of the Club’s former coach T. and the former board member S. in manipulating the final match of the 49th Turkish Cup played on 11 May 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Match” or “the Cup Final”) opposing Besiktas to the football club I.B.B. Spor (hereinafter referred to as “IBB Spor”). I. THE PARTIES A. Besiktas Jimnastik Kulübü 2. Besiktas is a Turkish football club, affiliated with the Turkish Football Federation (hereinafter also referred to as “TFF”), which in turn is affiliated with UEFA. 3. Besiktas took part, at the time of the relevant events, in the Turkish Süper Lig (hereinafter “the Super League”), which is the first division Championship in Turkey. B. UEFA 4. UEFA is an association incorporated under Swiss law with its headquarters in Nyon, Switzerland. UEFA is the governing body of European football, dealing with all questions relating to European football and exercising regulatory, supervisory and disciplinary functions over its affiliated national associations, as well as their affiliated clubs, officials and players. 5. UEFA is one of the six continental confederations of the Fédération International de Football Association (hereinafter “FIFA”), which is the governing body of Football on worldwide level and has its registered office in Zurich, Switzerland. 6. One of UEFA’s attributions is to organise and conduct international football competitions and tournaments at European level. In this context, UEFA organises each year the UEFA Europa League tournament (hereinafter “UEL”), which is a competition gathering professional football teams from all over the continent. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts and allegations based on the parties’ written submissions and evidence adduced at the hearing. Additional facts and allegations may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. While the Panel has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the parties in the present proceedings, it refers in its Award only to the submission and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning. CAS 2013/A/3258 Besiktas Jimnastik Kulübü v. UEFA - page. 3 A. The sporting context of Besiktas before the Match 8. In March 2011, the head coach of the Club, Mr Bernd Schuster, resigned and his assistant, T., was named in this position until the end of the on-going season. 9. At that time, the Club was ranked 5th in the Super League and had 21 points less than the leading teams Fenerbahçe SK and Trabzonspor, but was still participating in the Turkish Cup tournament, drawn to play at the semi-final stage against Gaziantepspor to be played in April 2011. B. The investigation on Y. 10. Y. is a well-known personality in the Turkish football world. In 2011, he was the agent of various players, including K., who was at that time playing for Samsunspor, and I. and A. (these last hereinafter referred to as “the Players”), who were playing for IBB Spor. 11. In March 2011, in the context of an investigation related to match fixing, the Turkish police started recording the phone calls and intercepting the text messages of Y. Based on this operation, it was established that T. and Y. , who have known each other for a long time, spoke with each other dozens of times between the end of March 2011 and early May 2011. C. Semi-finals of the 2011 Turkish Cup 12. The semi-finals of the 2011 Turkish Cup were played between Besiktas and Gaziantepspor and between IBB Spor and Genclerbirligi. 13. After home and away games, Besiktas and IBB Spor qualified for the Cup Final, respectively on 20 and 21 April 2011. D. The events on the week before the Cup Final 14. In the week preceding the Cup Final, which was due to be played on 11 May 2011, the discussions between the officials of the Club and Y. intensified. 15. In this context, several phone calls took place (and were wiretapped) and meetings were organised on 7 and 9 May 2011. The content of these discussions and meetings will be analysed under Section D of the present Award. 16. Many discussions between Y. and the Players were also wiretapped, and messages between these individuals were intercepted by the Turkish police. E. The Cup Final 17. The Cup Final was played on 11 May 2011. Besiktas took a 1:0 lead in the first half of the match, but IBB Spor equalled the score in the second half through a penalty goal by I. The game ended 6:5 for Besiktas after a penalty shootout. CAS 2013/A/3258 Besiktas Jimnastik Kulübü v. UEFA - page. 4 F. The reports and decisions of the TFF 18. The on-going criminal investigation prompted the TFF to examine all football matches suspected of having been rigged, including the Cup Final played between Besiktas and IBB Spor. 19. The TFF Ethics Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the EC”) and the TFF Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the DC”) scrutinized the facts. After investigations, the Committees both cleared the Club and its officials, S. and T. (hereinafter also referred to as “the Officials”), as well as X., from the reproach of match-fixing activities in connection with the Match. The TFF Committees reached their resolution on 26 April and 6 May 2012, unanimously. 20. The EC issued another report on 15 August 2011, after having been granted full access to all evidence collected in the criminal investigation; the EC’s position remained unchanged after these further investigations. G. The criminal convictions of the Club’s officials 21. On 2 July 2012, the Istanbul 16th High Criminal Court (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”), on the basis of the evidence before it and the witnesses that it heard, convicted the Officials of match-fixing activities in respect of the Cup Final played between Besiktas and IBB Spor on 11 May 2011. 22. The High Court sentenced the Officials with imprisonment of one year and three months, a fine and various prohibitions related to football activities. H. The disciplinary proceedings before UEFA 23. At the end of the season 2012/2013, Besiktas qualified through the win in the Cup Final to take part in the UEFA Europa League 2013/2014. 24. On 7 May 2013, the Appellant completed and signed the Admission Criteria Form, and submitted it to UEFA. The Club did not mention any proceedings brought against it or its officials by the TFF or by Turkish court. 25. However, on 9 May 2013, the Appellant provided UEFA with additional information beyond that in the Admission Criteria Form. The Club notified UEFA of the disciplinary proceedings before the TFF and the criminal proceedings before the High Court in which S. and T. had been convicted. 26. On 7 June 2013, UEFA General Secretary referred the case of the Appellant to UEFA’s Control and Disciplinary Body (hereinafter referred to as the “UEFA CDB”). 27. On 21 June 2013, the UEFA CDB decided that it was comfortably satisfied that based on the evidence available, Article 2.08 of the Regulations of the UEFA Europa League 2013/2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “UELR”) was engaged and that therefore, the Club was not eligible to participate in the UEFA Europa League 2013/2014. 28. The Club appealed the decision of the UEFA CDB by notice dated 28 June 2013. CAS 2013/A/3258 Besiktas Jimnastik Kulübü v. UEFA - page. 5 29. On 15 July 2013, the UEFA Appeals Body (hereinafter referred to as the “UEFA AB”) uphold the UEFA CDB’s decision. III. SUMMARY OF THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CAS 30. On 17 July 2013, the Appellant filed an urgent request for provisional measures against the Appealed Decision. Furthermore, the Appellant requested that the present proceedings be dealt with by CAS following an accelerated procedure. 31. On 18 July 2013, the Appellant requested CAS to add the following respondents to the proceedings: - Bursaspor Kulübü Derneği (hereinafter referred to as “Bursaspor”) - Kayserispor Kulübü - Kasımpaşa Spor Kulübu 32. On 18 July 2013, the Respondent informed CAS (i) that it considered that the Appealed Decision was just, fair and appropriate, (ii) that the proceedings shall be dealt with following an accelerated procedure, (iii) that without acknowledging in any way an alleged entitlement of the Appellant to enjoy a stay, it did not object to the grant of a stay of execution of the Appealed Decision, providing and assuming that CAS would issue a final decision on 29 August 2013 (00:00 am, Swiss time) or on 8 August 2013.