CAS 2004/A/593 Football Association of Wales (FAW) v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
- Football
- Doping (Bromantan)
- CAS jurisdiction
- Arbitrability of the dispute
- Complicity of the federation or the club
1. A decision, which effect is to permit one of the national football team concerned to compete in the last stages of Euro 2004 has obviously serious financial repercussions. Following a case-by-case approach and taking into account its effects, the disputed decision is predominantly of a pecuniary nature (as opposed to sporting nature) for both parties. According to art. 62 UEFA Statutes, CAS has jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed against a decision of a pecuniary nature.
2. “Implicated” is more than just being “involved”. This technique, applied to art. 12 UEFA DR, leads to the legitimate conclusion that “implicated association” means participation of an association in the voluntary or negligent use of a banned substance or method by a player being aware of his doing so.
3. When there is no evidence that a federation or a club cooperated intentionally or negligently in the use of the banned substance by the Player, the said federation or club cannot be assimilated to an “accomplice or abettor” of player under the terms of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations and consequently cannot be sanctioned.
In December 2003 the UEFA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian football player Titov after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Bromantan.
Consequently the UEFA Control & Disciplinary Body decided on 22 January 2004 to impose:
- a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete and a CHF 10’000.- fine.
- a fine of CHF 20’000.- on FC Spartak Moscow.
In January 2004 the Football Association of Wales (FAW) filed a formal protest at the continued inclusion of Russia in the Euro 2004 finals. Because of Tito's anti-doping rule violation the FAW contended that in accordance with the UEFA Rules the Football Union of Russia (FUR) should be excluded from participation in the Euro 2004 in Portugal and that Wales should be awarded their place in the tournament.
On 3 February 2004 the UEFA Control & Disciplinary Body decided to reject the complaint of the FAW for being unfounded. Thereupon on 1 April 2004 the UEFA Appeals Body ruled that the appeal of the FAW was rejected inasmuch as it was admissible and it confirmed the Control & Disciplinary Body’s decision of 3 February 2004.
Hereafter in April 2004 the FAW appealed the UEFA Appeals Body Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The FAW requested the Panel for:
(1) a declaration that the Appealed Decision against is flawed by errors of law and is void and of no effect;
(2) a declaration that on the correct interpretation of the relevant UEFA rules and regulations, the FUR is implicated as an accomplice or abettor of Titov for having fielded a player who had a prohibited substance in his body, irrespective of the fact that the FUR was unaware when the matches in question were played that Titov had a prohibited substance in his body; and
(3) a declaration that on the correct interpretation of the relevant UEFA rules and regulations UEFA‟s disciplinary organs are accordingly empowered to impose on the FUR an appropriate sanction, and UFEA's disciplinary organs are obliged on the basis of the FAW's complaint to consider what sanction to impose within the powers conferred by the relevant rules and regulations.
Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:
- The decision of the UEFA Appeals Body wasn't flawed by errors of law and was void and of no effect.
- The FUR was not implicated in any asserted doping violation by Titov.
- Without FUR's implication in any doping offence, there is no legal basis for applying a sanction on the FUR.
Therefore on 6 July 2004 the Court of Arbitration for Sport:
1.) Has jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by the Football Association of Wales on 10 April 2004.
2.) Dismiss the appeal filed by the Football Association of Wales. (…)
