The case involves an appeal by FC Zenit St. Petersburg against sanctions imposed by the Russian Football Union (RFU) following an incident during a match against FC Dynamo Moscow on 17 November 2012. The match was abandoned after a pyrotechnic device thrown by Zenit supporters injured Dynamo’s goalkeeper, Anton Shunin. The RFU’s Control and Disciplinary Committee (CDC) initially sanctioned Zenit with a 3-0 defeat, two home matches behind closed doors, and fines totaling 1.1 million rubles for violations including supporter interference, obscene chants, and pyrotechnic use. Dynamo was also fined for failing to ensure public order and security. Zenit appealed the decision, arguing against the sanctions and the interpretation of the arbitration agreement.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel addressed several legal principles in its decision. It emphasized the broad interpretation of arbitration clauses to ensure procedural efficiency, clarifying that jurisdiction extends to all disputes unless otherwise indicated. The panel also upheld the principle of strict liability for clubs regarding their supporters' behavior, regardless of the club’s fault, to serve preventive and deterrent purposes. The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings was established as "comfortable satisfaction," a well-established CAS principle. The panel distinguished between the security obligations of the home club and the strict liability of the visiting club, noting that failures in security do not preclude sanctions for supporter misconduct.
Zenit contested the sanctions, arguing that Dynamo failed to follow proper ticket allocation procedures and maintain security records, suggesting Dynamo’s fans might have been responsible for the incident. The RFU countered that Zenit’s fans were known for using pyrotechnics and that the ticket allocation process was correctly followed. The CAS panel examined evidence, including match protocols, delegate reports, and video footage, concluding that the pyrotechnic device originated from the sector occupied by Zenit supporters. The panel dismissed Zenit’s claims of insufficient evidence, upholding the reliability of official match reports.
The panel ultimately dismissed Zenit’s appeal, reinforcing the importance of clubs' responsibility for their supporters' actions. It upheld the RFU’s sanctions, including the 3-0 defeat and fines, and rejected Zenit’s requests for annulment, compensation, or sanctions against Dynamo. The ruling highlighted the procedural and substantive legal principles governing arbitration and disciplinary measures in sports, emphasizing strict liability and the preventive role of such sanctions. The decision underscored the balance between holding clubs accountable for fan behavior and addressing organizational failures by host clubs, aligning with established CAS jurisprudence.
The final CAS award, issued on 7 October 2013, confirmed the RFU’s original decision and dismissed all of Zenit’s appeals, concluding the matter definitively. The case serves as a precedent for the application of strict liability in disciplinary proceedings and the importance of clubs' accountability for their supporters' conduct.