Sent to Valencia CF Plaza Valencia C.F. numero 2 46010 Valencia Spain

Decision

of the

Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body on

21 February 2019

Ad-hoc- Berzi Sándor (HUN) Chairman:

Members: Leal João (POR) Řepka Rudolf (CZE)

Disciplinary Case: 32344 - UEL - 2018/19

Incidents: Receiving yellow card on purpose – Art. 15 (1) (c) DR

Competition: 2018/2019 UEFA Europa League

Match: Celtic FC vs. Valencia CF, 14.02.2019

Referee: Ovidiu Alin Hategan (ROU)

2 | Page

I. Facts Of The Case

The elements set out below are a summary of the main relevant facts, as established by the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) on the basis of the official reports, the written submissions, the exhibits filed and the statements produced by Valencia CF (the “Club”) in the course of the CEDB proceedings. Whilst the CEDB has considered all of the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Club in these proceedings, it refers in this decision only to the submissions and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning.

The facts of this case, as reported by the UEFA Match Delegate and the Referee at the 2018/19 UEFA Europa League match between Celtic FC and the Club on 14 February 2019, are as follows:

Referee: “In the 83rd minute, number 6 (Valencia) Geoffrey Kondogbia ignored on purpose two times my signal to take a free kick in the middle of the pitch. He delayed on purpose the restart of play. After this, I showed him a yellow card and he accepted the decision without any problems. In my opinion, the player deliberately provoked me to show him this yellow card.”

UEFA Match Delegate: “The referee has done a statement about one yellow card for nr. 6 in Valencia. Both me and the referee observer agree in the below text: In the 83rd minute, number 6 (Valencia) Geoffrey Kondogbia ignored on purpose two times my signal to take a free kick in the middle of the pitch. He delayed on purpose the restart of play. After this, I showed him a yellow card and he accepted the decision without any problems. In my opinion, the player deliberately provoked me to show him this yellow card.”

II. The Club’s statements

The Club in its statements dated on 20 February 2019 essentially states the following: - The intention of Mr. Geoffrey Kondogbia (“the Player”) was to restart the play but during most of the initial time, home player number 22 was positioned in a short distance that did not allow the Player to play the ball.

- The Referee’s report introduces just a mere opinion but not an affirmation about the Player’s action. In this sense the Club considers that if the Referee wouldn’t have any doubt, he should have drafted clearly without expressing an opinion.

- The Player, contrary to the Referee’s report, showed his disagreement about the decision of the Referee.

- Consequently, the Club considers that no additional sanction should be imposed against the Player. 3 | Page

The more detailed arguments made by the Club in support of its written submissions are set out below in as far as they are relevant.

III. Merits of the Case

A. UEFA´s competence and relevant provisions applicable to the case

Pursuant to Articles 33(3), 52 and 57 of the UEFA Statutes, as well as Article 29(3) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (DR), the CEDB is competent to deal with this case.

Pursuant to Article 5(a) DR, the UEFA Statutes, rules and regulations, in particular the DR, are applicable to these proceedings.

The following relevant provisions apply to the case at hand.

According to Article 15(1)(c) DR, “[t]he following suspensions apply for competition matches: [...] suspension for two competition matches or a specified period for clearly receiving a yellow or red card on purpose.”

According to Article 45 DR, “[f]acts contained in official UEFA reports are presumed to be accurate. Proof of their inaccuracy may, however, be provided.”

Pursuant to Article 23 DR, “1 [t]he competent disciplinary body determines the type and extent of the disciplinary measures to be imposed in accordance with the objective and subjective elements of the offence, taking account of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. […] 3 Disciplinary measures can be reduced or increased by the competent disciplinary body on the basis of the circumstances of the specific case. […]”.

According to Article 48.02(b) of the Regulations of the UEFA Europa League 2018-21 Cycle, 2018/19 Season, “[i]n case of repeated cautions: […] from the first match in the group stage, a player is suspended for the next competition match after three cautions in three different matches, as well as following any subsequent odd-numbered caution (fifth, seventh, ninth, etc.).”

According to Law 5 of the Laws of the Game 2018/19, “[…] [e]ach match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match. […] [D]ecisions of the referee […] will be made to the best of the referee`s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.”

B. The improper conduct of Mr Geoffrey Kondogbia.

In the case at hand, according to the official reports, the Referee and the UEFA Match Delegate considered that the Player deliberately delayed the restart of the match to provoke a yellow card. 4 | Page

To analyse the incident, it is necessary to take into account the factors of this case as at the moment when the Referee showed the yellow card to the Player, the score was 0-2 favourable to the Club and the yellow card received by the Player was the third yellow card of the Player in the competition which lead to the sanction of one-match suspension for repeated yellow cards according to Article 48.02(b) of the Regulations of the UEFA Europa League 2018-21 Cycle, 2018/19 Season.

After having evaluated the video footage of the action as well as the Club’s statements, the CEDB complies with the conclusion reached by the Referee and the UEFA Match Delegate for the following reasons:

First, it was obvious that the Player had to take the free kick immediately, without any delay, given that the Referee had already blown the whistle for the first time. The CEDB understands that at first, the Player did not restart the match due to the proximity of Celtic FC player, who, following the indications of the Referee, made some steps backwards away from the ball. However, after the second whistle of the Referee, with the opponent being at a proper distance, the Player did not make any attempt to take the free-kick or even give the impression like he was about to do it. The CEDB estimates that even if the Player would have considered that the Celtic FC player was not at the correct distance, he could have restarted the match as the opponent was undoubtedly not able to interfere. Therefore, the CEDB considers that Player’s intention and attitude was to clearly provoke a yellow card on purpose.

In this sense, the CEDB cannot concur with the explanations given by the Club as it is very clear that the Player had no intention to restart the match at any time, having a passive attitude until the Referee showed him the yellow card. This is even more obvious from the clear terms used the Referee when stating in his report that the player “delayed on purpose the restart of play.“

Regarding the Club’s argument about the description made by the Referee in his report, the CEDB recalls that according to Law 5 of the Laws of the Game 2018/19, the Referee’s duty is to apply the Laws of the Game and not to apply the DR, which is reserved to the UEFA Judicial Bodies. Consequently, noting that the relevant circumstances of this case, i.e. the fact that the Player obviously provoked the yellow card, have been clearly established by the official reports (whose presumption of accuracy has not been disproved by the club pursuant to Article 45 DR) and the facts stipulated by the Referee and the UEFA Match Delegate, the CEDB concludes that Article 15(1)(c) is applicable in the present case.

Considering all the above, the CEDB is convinced that the images of the incident and the Player’s attitude, combined with the general context explained above, represent more than sufficient evidence to conclude to the comfortable satisfaction of the CEDB that the Player, for strategic reasons in order to serve his suspension during the second leg match to be played in Valencia, deliberately committed the offence that resulted in a yellow card. 5 | Page

Consequently, the CEDB deems that the Player infringed Article 15(1)(c) DR and needs to be punished accordingly.

IV. The determination of the appropriate disciplinary measure

According to Article 15(1)(c) DR, a player is suspended, at least, for two matches for clearly receiving a yellow card on purpose.

The CEDB notes that in practical terms, in accordance with the ratio legis of this provision and the proportionality requirements when determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction, the suspension of two matches contemplated in Article 15(1)(c) DR for this specific case should include the one match suspension the Player has or had to serve in accordance with Article 48.02(b) of the Regulations of the UEFA Europa League 2018-21 Cycle, 2018/19 Season.

In the light of the above considerations, noting the absence of further mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the CEDB deems it appropriate to suspend the Player Geoffrey Kondogbia for two (2) UEFA competition matches for which he would be otherwise eligible. Given that the Player did not participate in the 2018/19 UEFA Europa League match between the Club and Celtic FC played on 21 February 2019, the Player still has to serve one (1) UEFA competition match for which he would be otherwise eligible.

Consequently, the CEDB

decides

1. To suspend the Valencia CF player Geoffrey Kondogbia for two (2) UEFA competition matches for which he would be otherwise eligible for clearly receiving a yellow card on purpose. 2. The club ensures the player is informed personally of this decision.

Bank details Union Bank of Switzerland CH-3001 Acc. n° 235-90 186’444.6 Bank code 235 Swift: UBS WCH ZH 80A cc Royal Spanish Football Federation IBAN CH30 00235235901864446

Detail address of UBS AG (Union Bank of Switzerland) - CH – 3001 BERNE VAT Number in Switzerland: CHE-116.317.087 Fiscal number in Switzerland / canton de Vaud: 21 652 Advice as to rights of appeal

This decision is open to appeal (Article 60 DR).

A declaration of the intention to appeal against a decision by the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body must be lodged with the UEFA administration, in writing, for the attention of the Appeals Body, within three days of notification of the relevant decision with grounds (Article 60(2) DR).

Within five days of the expiry of the time limit for the declaration of the intention to appeal, the appellant must file, in writing, the grounds for appeal, which must contain a legal request, an account of the facts, evidence, a list of the witnesses proposed (with a brief summary of their expected testimony) and the appellant’s conclusions (in particular on whether to conduct the appeal proceedings orally or in writing) (Article 60(3) DR).

The appeal fee is €1,000, payable on submission of the grounds for appeal at the latest (Article 60(4) DR).

Publication notice

Decisions of the UEFA disciplinary bodies are published on the UEFA website in accordance with Article 52(5) DR. A request to publish an anonymised version of the decision shall be submitted to the UEFA administration within seven days of notification of the decision with grounds.