3256 Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü V
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), award of 11 April 2014 (operative part of 28 August 2013) Panel: Mr Manfred Nan (the Netherlands), President; Prof. Ulrich Haas (Germany); Mr Rui Botica Santos (Portugal) Football Disciplinary sanction against a club for match-fixing Definitions of “match-fixing” Res judicata Ne bis in idem Competence of UEFA to instigate disciplinary proceedings in national match-fixing cases Standard of proof in match-fixing cases Liability for match-fixing of a legal entity Proportionality of the sanction 1. In its “classic” sense, match-fixing involves a party directly or indirectly influencing or trying to influence the outcome of matches to its own benefit. In a more “modern” sense, match-fixing involves third parties (i.e. criminal organisations) attempting to influence the result of a match by inducing athletes, referees or clubs to act in a certain way during a match. The third party fixing the match is not necessarily interested in the outcome of the match, but is interested in certain events to occur on which bets can be placed, in order to make profit. Although third parties are not involved in “classic” match-fixing, the latter is in fact just as treacherous to the integrity of sport, if not more, as match-fixing in its “modern” context. 2. The procedural concept of res iudicata has two elements: 1) the so-called “Sperrwirkung” (prohibition to deal with the matter = ne bis in idem), the consequence of this effect being that if a matter (with res iudicata) is brought again before the judge, the latter is not even allowed to look at it, but must dismiss the matter (insofar) as inadmissible; and 2) the so-called “Bindungswirkung” (binding effect of the decision), according to which the judge in a second procedure is bound to the outcome of the matter decided in res iudicata.
[Show full text]