5338 Olegs Penkovskis V
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2017/A/5338 Olegs Penkovskis v. Latvian Football Federation (LFF), award of 7 June 2018 Panel: Mr Lars Hilliger (Denmark), Sole Arbitrator Football Match-fixing Burden and standard of proof in match-fixing cases Evidence required in match-fixing cases Requirements of claim for compensation for non-material damage 1. In match-fixing cases the burden of proof regarding alleged involvement in match manipulation and/or any other breach of the principles of fair play lies with the governing body of the respective sport. Furthermore, CAS jurisprudence has constantly upheld the standard of proof in match-fixing cases to be the one of comfortable satisfaction, defined as being greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. While applying this standard of proof in match-fixing cases, one should bear in mind “the seriousness of the allegation which is made” and that most likely any corruption and manipulation is “by its nature, concealed as the parties involved will seek to use the evasive means to ensure that they leave no trail of their wrongdoings”. 2. The fact that a match, based on specific evidence, is considered manipulated for betting purposes is only the first step in deciding whether a certain player or a certain club is to be considered with comfortable satisfaction directly or indirectly involved in such match manipulation. It is crucial whether it is possible, on the basis of the player’s/clubs’ conduct on the pitch during the match or otherwise, to conclude that the player/club was involved in manipulation and/or in any other way breached the principles of fair play.
[Show full text]