The case involves a dispute between Greek football club PAOK FC and UEFA over PAOK's admission to UEFA competitions for the 2006/2007 season. PAOK's initial application for a license was denied by the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF) Licensing Committee on May 25, 2006. Although PAOK appealed and the HFF Appeals Committee reversed its decision on June 9, 2006, granting the license, UEFA refused to admit PAOK, citing procedural irregularities and missed deadlines. UEFA argued that the final decision was communicated after the May 31, 2006 deadline, violating its licensing manual and procedural rules, which required decisions by May 15 and communication to UEFA by May 25.
PAOK challenged UEFA's decision before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking to overturn it. The CAS Sole Arbitrator, Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, examined the case under UEFA Statutes and CAS rules. The arbitrator ruled that verbal communication could not override written denials of an extension and emphasized that force majeure—defined as an unforeseeable, objective impediment—did not apply. The arbitrator also held PAOK responsible for delays caused by its auxiliaries, such as the bank providing financial guarantees.
The core issue was whether the June 9 decision by HFF's Appeals Committee could override the May 31 deadline. PAOK claimed UEFA had verbally agreed to an extension, but the arbitrator found no formal extension was granted, as evidenced by written correspondence. UEFA had explicitly denied an extension beyond May 31, and HFF had submitted its list of licensed clubs by the deadline, excluding PAOK. The arbitrator rejected PAOK's force majeure argument, stating financial delays were within PAOK's responsibility.
PAOK also argued unequal treatment, citing Atromitos Athens F.C., which allegedly submitted a late license without consequences. The arbitrator found no evidence of unequal treatment, as Atromitos' unsolicited letter was not considered by UEFA. The arbitrator emphasized that accepting late submissions would undermine the licensing system's fairness and predictability.
Ultimately, the arbitrator dismissed PAOK's appeal, upholding UEFA's decision to exclude the club for failing to meet the deadline. The ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to procedural rules and deadlines in licensing processes, clarifying the limited scope of force majeure exceptions and the principle of responsibility for auxiliaries' actions. The decision maintained the integrity of UEFA's licensing system.