The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case 2007/A/1217 involved Feyenoord Rotterdam appealing sanctions imposed by UEFA following violent behavior by its supporters during a UEFA Cup match against AS Nancy-Lorraine on November 30, 2006. The CAS panel, composed of Martin Schimke, Peter Leaver QC, and Luigi Fumagalli, examined key legal principles, including the role of disciplinary law, the definition of a "supporter," strict liability of clubs for supporter conduct, and the proportionality of sanctions. The panel emphasized that UEFA’s disciplinary regulations aim to maintain order and enforce conduct standards through sanctions. The term "supporter" was not explicitly defined in UEFA’s regulations, nor was it tied to nationality, residence, or ticket purchases. UEFA does not distinguish between "official" and "unofficial" supporters, as this would undermine clubs' responsibility for all individuals whose behavior identifies them as supporters. Behavior and proximity to the stadium were deemed critical factors in determining support.
Under Article 6(1) of UEFA’s Disciplinary Regulations, clubs bear strict liability for their supporters' conduct, regardless of fault. Mitigating circumstances, such as ticketing systems or warnings, do not absolve clubs of responsibility. The panel upheld this principle, rejecting Feyenoord’s argument that it could not be held accountable for supporters who obtained tickets outside its controlled system. Regarding proportionality, the panel referenced CAS jurisprudence, stating sanctions must not be grossly disproportionate. UEFA’s disqualification sanction was deemed appropriate for addressing hooliganism, as it prevents further incidents during the season. The panel found UEFA’s sanctions—a CHF 200,000 fine and a two-match closed-door probationary order—proportionate given the severity of the disturbances.
The incident involved extensive violence by Feyenoord supporters, including rioting in Nancy, seat-throwing, and clashes with police, leading to a 34-minute match interruption due to teargas. Despite Feyenoord’s efforts to manage ticketing and warn of potential trouble, the panel upheld UEFA’s sanctions, emphasizing the club’s strict liability for supporter conduct. UEFA’s Appeals Body later partially upheld its own appeal, disqualifying Feyenoord from the 2006/07 UEFA Cup, imposing a CHF 100,000 fine, and ordering the club to settle damages with AS Nancy-Lorraine. Feyenoord’s cross-appeal was rejected, and an investigation into the entry of Dutch supporters was mandated.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction based on UEFA statutes and the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, applying UEFA rules with Swiss law as a subsidiary. The panel rejected Feyenoord’s attempt to distinguish between "official" and "unofficial" supporters, underscoring that such a distinction is irrelevant under UEFA’s regulations. The club’s efforts to prevent disturbances did not absolve it of liability under the strict liability rule. The panel also noted Feyenoord’s history of disciplinary issues, including twelve supporter-related cases in five years, justifying the severity of the sanction. While acknowledging the economic impact of disqualification, the panel deemed it temporary and not preventing participation in national competitions or future European tournaments. The decision reinforced UEFA’s commitment to eradicating hooliganism, stating disqualification was the most effective measure to prevent further incidents. The CAS ultimately upheld UEFA’s sanctions, finding them appropriate and proportionate.