TAD lifts partial closure of Alvalade after FC Porto complaint | OneFootball

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAD) examined the appeal submitted by Sporting against the partial closure of the José Alvalade Stadium and considered the accompanying “injunctive request” to be “well-founded,” ordering the “suspension” of the sanction relating to the “closure of sector A17” imposed by the Disciplinary Board, following FC Porto’s complaint after the classic match on August 30.

In practical terms, it was decided that, until the main decision becomes final, the effects of the penalty are suspended.

FC Porto’s action resulted from objects being thrown onto the pitch—namely lighters—during the celebrations of Porto players after the two goals that secured their victory at Alvalade (2-1). The FPF Disciplinary Board found that “during the second half of the match, around the 61st minute of regular time,” Sporting fans “located in the north stand, sector A17” threw “several objects, namely lighters, in the direction of FC Porto, SAD players, who were celebrating their team’s first goal.” “One of the lighters thrown hit the FC Porto, SAD player, Zaidu (shirt no. 12), requiring medical assistance, which led the match referee to delay the restart of play by about 2 minutes,” explained the FPF disciplinary body.

In its defense, Sporting argues that “the appealed decision is based on profoundly erroneous assumptions,” that it “suffers from serious and evident flaws which resulted in an inadmissible and deliberate violation of the claimant’s rights of defense,” and that it is, as they emphasize, “the result of a string of blatant illegalities signed by the Disciplinary Board.” “We are, ultimately, faced with a disciplinary proceeding and a decision that are the antithesis of a fair and equitable process,” they add.

In detail, the club states that “(i) the claimant’s right to a fair and equitable process was violated, (ii) guarantees of administrative impartiality and independence were violated, (iii) the ne bis in idem principle was violated, (iv) the appealed decision errs in the assessment of evidence and violates the presumption of innocence, (v) for several clear reasons, the typical elements of the disciplinary infractions attributed to the claimant are not met, (vi) there is no failure on the part of the claimant regarding the duties of training and supervision over its fans and supporters, and (vii) the typical event (negative outcome) cannot be attributed to the claimant.”

Sporting’s representatives also point to procedures they consider deficient: “We are dealing with a process in which (i) evidence requested by the claimant was unjustifiably denied; (ii) evidence was not made available to the claimant at the procedurally relevant moment; (iii) evidence against the claimant was produced outside the limits permitted in the RDLPFP; (iv) a lawyer from the participant’s legal department acted as interpreter during the questioning of one of the witnesses; (v) the appealed decision is full of factual distortions completely contradicted by the case files; and (vi) the disciplinary procedure and the appealed decision were, respectively, conducted and issued by someone who had already formed an opinion regarding the thema decidendum and the claimant’s guilt.”

Regarding the incident involving Porto player Zaidu, Sporting claims that “none of the indicated pieces of evidence is capable of suggesting or supporting the typical result at issue in the case, making it impossible to state, with any degree of certainty, that the object was thrown by Sporting SAD fans present in sector A17; that the object that allegedly hit player Zaidu was a lighter; that player Zaidu felt pain; and that player Zaidu actually required medical assistance.”

In response to the 77 claims submitted by the green and whites, the FPF countered with three clarifications: “1. The Portuguese Football Federation hereby states its position of not opposing the granting of the requested injunctive relief regarding the sanction of closing a sector of the sports venue; 2. However, the Portuguese Football Federation also makes it clear that such a procedural position taken within the context of the injunctive proceedings does not imply any admission of the facts alleged by the Claimant, either in the injunctive proceedings, particularly regarding the fulfillment of the appearance of good right criterion, or in the main action; 3. The discussion will be referred, solely and exclusively, to the defense to be presented in the main arbitration action,” they wrote.

The TAD further concluded that various facts described by the FPF Disciplinary Board were “summarily and indicatively unproven,” namely that “the supporters of the Defendant Sporting Clube de Portugal – Futebol, SAD (…) threw several objects, namely lighters, in the direction of the FC Porto, SAD players”; that these “hit the FC Porto, SAD player, Zaidu”; that “the Claimant did not do everything within its power to prevent them”; and that “the Claimant has not (…) adopted and/or promoted awareness and socio-educational prevention actions against violent practices.”

In summary, the TAD decided “to uphold the injunctive request made by the Claimant, ordering, as a result, because it is appropriate and proportional, the suspension of the disciplinary sanction applied by resolution of the Professional Section of the Disciplinary Board of the Respondent Entity” and determined that the costs “should be borne by the Respondent, referring the determination of the final costs of the entire present process to the arbitral decision to be issued in the main action, considering that the value of €30,000.01 was attributed to the present case and that the process costs include the arbitration fee and the costs of the arbitral process.”

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇵🇹 here.