Skip to the content Home .:. About .:. Biography
Name The Court of Arbitration for Sports
Ethnic xxxx
Job xxxx
Desc xxxx

Affiliation

Location xxxx

2019 07 19 Retrieve

[The Court of Arbitration for Sport has rejected the Palestine Football Association president’s appeal against a 12-month ban for ‘inciting hatred and violence’ against Lionel Messi. Ahead of Argentina’s scheduled pre-World Cup friendly against Israel in June 2018, Jibril Rajoub spoke out about the match amid the conflict and political tension between Israelis and Palestinians. The match was due to take place in Teddy Stadium, Jerusalem, a ground built on land said to have belonged to a Palestinian village before its destruction in 1948] He’s a big symbol so we are going to target him personally and we call on all to burn his picture and his shirt and to abandon him. We still hope that Messi will not come

2019 07 31 Retrieve

[The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has ruled the 2018-19 CAF Champions League final second leg will not be replayed, following a request by the CAF Executive Committee. ES Tunis were crowned champions after beating Wydad Casablanca 2-1 on aggregate after a 1-0 win in the second leg] The CAS Panel in charge of this matter has considered that the CAF Executive Committee did not have jurisdiction to order that the second leg of the final be replayed and has decided to annul the decision challenged.

The appeals of both clubs are therefore partially upheld for that reason. It is now for the competent CAF authorities to review the incidents which occurred in the Rades stadium on 31 May 2019, to order the appropriate disciplinary sanctions, if any, and accordingly to decide whether the second leg of the CAF Champions League final 2018-2019 shall be replayed or not.

The CAS Panel having annulled the decision of the CAF Executive Committee for formal reasons, it has decided to refer to the competent CAF bodies the questions of the replay of the final’s second leg and of the disciplinary procedure, which is currently pending before the CAF and which does not fall within the CAS jurisdiction in the present arbitration procedure.

2019 09 17 Retrieve

[Paris Saint-Germain forward Neymar has seen his Champions League suspension reduced from three games to two by the Court of Arbitration for Sport] The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has rendered its final decision in the appeal filed by the French club Paris St-Germain and the player Neymar Da Silva Santos Jr. against the decision taken by the UEFA Appeals Body on 18 June 2019. The player was found to have insulted match officials through social media at the end of the Champions League match Paris St-Germain vs Manchester United on 6 March 2019 and sanctioned with a 3-match suspension from UEFA competition matches for which he would otherwise be eligible.

Following an appeal filed on 18 July 2019 by both Paris St-Germain and the player, this CAS procedure was referred to a Sole Arbitrator, Prof. Ulrich Haas (Germany). A hearing was held at the CAS headquarters on 13 September 2019, during which the parties and their legal representatives were heard. In application of Art. 15 (1) lit. b of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations which provides for a minimum suspension of two matches in case of ‘abusive language’ directed at a match official, the Sole Arbitrator partially upheld the appeal and reduced the suspension imposed by UEFA on Neymar Jr. to two (2) UEFA competition matches for which he would otherwise be eligible.

2019 11 15 Retrieve

[CAS explained Man City’s appeal was not admissible because UEFA has not reached a final decision in the case] The CAS Panel determined that MCFC’s appeal was inadmissible, considering that ‘An appeal against the decision of a federation, association or sports-related body may be filed with CAS … if the Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available to it prior to the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulations of that body.’(Article R47 of the CAS Rules)

In the present case, the decision rendered by the CFCB IC to refer a case to the CFCB AC is not final and can therefore not be appealed to CAS directly, because the AC is competent to take any of the decisions listed in Article 27 CFCB Procedural Rules, that are described as being final

2019 12 06 Retrieve

[Chelsea freed to spend again in January as transfer ban is halved by CAS] The FIFA Appeal Committee decision dated 11 April 2019, in which CFC was declared liable for violations of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and banned from registering new players, nationally and internationally, for two (2) entire and consecutive registration periods, fined CHF 600,000, reprimanded and warned on its future conduct, has been modified

The following sanctions have now been imposed by the CAS: CFC is banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for one (1) entire registration period, which the club already served during the 2019 summer registration period

CFC is ordered to pay a fine to FIFA of the amount of CHF 300,000 (three hundred thousand Swiss Francs)

2020 02 26 Retrieve

[CAS confirms Man City appeal against UEFA’s Champions League bans] The appeal is directed against the decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) dated 14 February 2020 in which Manchester City was deemed to have contravened UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations and sanctioned with exclusion from the next two seasons of UEFA club competitions for which the club would qualify and ordered to pay a fine of EUR 30 million.

Generally speaking, CAS appeal arbitration procedures involve an exchange of written submissions between the parties while a Panel of CAS arbitrators is being convened. Once the Panel has been formally constituted it issues procedural directions, including, inter alia, with respect to the holding of a hearing. Following the hearing, the Panel deliberates and then issues its decision in the form of an Arbitral Award.

It is not possible to indicate at this time when a final award in this matter will be issued

2020 03 17 Retrieve

[Coronavirus crisis could delay Man City appeal against Champions League ban] CAS will not host any in-person hearing before 1 May 2020, at the earliest. Depending on the circumstances of each individual case, the arbitrators and parties are encouraged to conduct hearings by video-conference or to cancel them (final award on the basis of the written submissions). If such measures are not possible or appropriate, the hearings must be postponed until May 2020 or later. Depending on the evolution of the Covid-19 outbreak, the prohibition of in-person hearings may be extended

2020 06 10 Retrieve

[Manchester City will likely learn the fate of their appeal against their Champions League ban in early July, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has announced.] The decision is expected to be issued during the first half of July 2020. The exact date will be communicated in advance

2020 07 10 Retrieve

[Manchester City European ban appeal decision to be announced at 9.30am Monday] The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will announce the decision taken in the arbitration procedure between Manchester City Football Club and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) on Monday, 13 July 2020

2020 07 13 Retrieve

[Manchester City to play in Champions League next season after European ban overturned] As the charges with respect to any dishonest concealment of equity funding were clearly more significant violations than obstructing the CFCB’s investigations, it was not appropriate to impose a ban on participating in UEFA’s club competitions for MCFC’s failure to co-operate with the CFCB’s investigations alone

However, considering i) the financial resources of MCFC; ii) the importance of the cooperation of clubs in investigations conducted by the CFCB, because of its limited investigative means; and iii) MCFC’s disregard of such principle and its obstruction of the investigations, the CAS Panel found that a significant fine should be imposed on MCFC and considered it appropriate to reduce UEFA’s initial fine by 2/3, i.e. to the amount of EUR 10 million