The case involves Györi ETO, a Hungarian football club, appealing a UEFA decision regarding violations of the UEFA Club Licensing Regulations. The dispute arose from Györi ETO's failure to timely pay a transfer fee of EUR 100,000 to Estonian club FC Flora Tallinn for a player transfer. The fee was to be paid in two installments, but the club delayed payment, only settling EUR 50,000 by March 2010. UEFA's regulations require accurate financial disclosures to ensure transparency and fair play. Györi ETO submitted a transfer payables form declaring an overdue amount of EUR 50,000, but UEFA found discrepancies in the club's financial disclosures. The UEFA Appeals Body ruled against Györi ETO, leading to an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel addressed several legal issues, confirming its authority to review facts and law under Article R57 of the CAS Code. It upheld UEFA's jurisdiction over disputes involving breaches of its Club Licensing Regulations, emphasizing that transfer agreement clauses cannot override UEFA's regulatory authority. The panel stressed the importance of accurate financial disclosure for financial fair play and ruled that domestic laws are irrelevant in assessing compliance with UEFA regulations. It recognized UEFA's broad discretion in sanctioning clubs for violations and noted that exceptions to licensing rules are solely at UEFA's discretion.
The panel found Györi ETO had failed to meet its disclosure obligations, as the club did not accurately report overdue payables. The delayed payment and incomplete disclosure undermined financial transparency. The panel dismissed the appeal, affirming UEFA's decision and reinforcing the importance of strict adherence to financial regulations in European football. The ruling underscores UEFA's authority in enforcing financial fair play and maintaining competition integrity.
UEFA's Club Financial Control Panel (CFC) found Györi ETO in violation of licensing regulations, leading to disciplinary action. On 16 June 2011, UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Body imposed sanctions, including a EUR 50,000 fine and disqualification from the next three UEFA competitions for which the club qualified. The Hungarian Football Federation (HFF) was also fined EUR 100,000 for granting the license despite Györi ETO's non-compliance. Györi ETO and the HFF appealed, arguing Flora's failure to provide proper documentation excused the delay. On 29 November 2011, UEFA's Appeals Body partially upheld the appeal, reducing Györi ETO's disqualification from three seasons to two, with the third season's disqualification suspended. The EUR 50,000 fine was upheld, and both Györi ETO and the HFF were ordered to share legal costs of EUR 6,000.
The CAS panel concluded Györi ETO had failed to meet its disclosure obligations under UEFA regulations, dismissing the club's justifications based on national laws and invoice formalities. The panel upheld UEFA's sanctions, including the fine and competition disqualification, deeming them proportional given the club's deliberate concealment of financial information and unfair advantage gained by participating in the 2010-2011 UEFA Europa League. The panel rejected Györi ETO's request for an exception based on Hungary's status as a smaller football nation, stating such decisions lie solely with UEFA's discretion.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Györi ETO's appeal entirely, upholding the UEFA Appeals Body's ruling and rejecting all further claims. The case highlights the strict enforcement of UEFA's financial regulations and the consequences of non-compliance, reinforcing the importance of procedural adherence and financial transparency in European football.