The case involves two professional football players, N. and V., from the Hungarian club Debreceni VSC, who appealed against sanctions imposed by UEFA for alleged match-fixing. UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Body suspended N. until December 31, 2011, with a EUR 7,000 fine, and V. until June 30, 2012, with a EUR 10,000 fine. The sanctions were upheld by the UEFA Appeals Body on September 8, 2010, leading the players to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on October 29, 2010. They sought to overturn the decision and requested a stay of execution, arguing the suspensions would cause irreparable harm to their careers and livelihoods, as football was their sole income source.
The CAS evaluated the stay request under three criteria: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and balance of interests. The players claimed the sanctions would disproportionately affect their careers and future prospects. However, the CAS found they failed to demonstrate a plausible case for overturning UEFA's decision, a key requirement for provisional measures. The Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division noted the players did not present arguments suggesting the UEFA decision was manifestly flawed, leading to the denial of the stay request.
The ruling highlights the CAS's strict adherence to legal principles in assessing provisional measures, requiring appellants to meet cumulative criteria, including a plausible case for appeal success. Since the players did not satisfy the likelihood of success test, the CAS refused to stay the sanctions, leaving UEFA's decision in effect pending the final appeal outcome. The decision underscores the necessity of presenting a robust legal argument when seeking interim relief in sports arbitration.
The Deputy President's decision further clarifies that the appellants did not address the merits of their case or show any likelihood of success, a critical requirement for provisional relief. The appealed decision appeared prima facie clear and not manifestly ill-founded, leading to the dismissal of the stay application. The ruling explicitly states no opinion on the final case outcome, which will be determined by the appointed panel. The application for provisional measures was dismissed, with costs to be decided in the final award. The decision aligns with established CAS case law, treating provisional relief requirements as cumulative. The Deputy President's ruling emphasizes the appellants' failure to meet the necessary legal standards for their request, reinforcing the importance of a well-founded argument in such proceedings.