The case involves an appeal by the Bulgarian Football Union (BFU) against a decision by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, which found the BFU liable for improper conduct by spectators during a World Cup qualifying match between Bulgaria and Armenia on September 11, 2012. The incident involved Armenian fans displaying political banners, which were removed before the match began. FIFA imposed a fine of CHF 7,500 on the BFU, citing violations of Articles 65 and 67 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC). The BFU appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the decision should be annulled and that FIFA should bear the costs.
The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction, noting that FIFA's statutes allow appeals to CAS in cases involving fines. The panel examined FIFA's authority under Article 67 FDC, which establishes strict liability for host federations regarding spectator conduct, even if the misconduct originates from visiting fans. However, the panel emphasized that FIFA retains discretion in imposing sanctions, considering factors like the severity of the incident and the host federation's response. In this case, the panel found that the BFU acted promptly to remove the banners once their political nature was recognized, and no disturbances or violence occurred. Given these mitigating circumstances, the panel concluded that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee had overstepped by imposing a fine.
The CAS panel annulled the FIFA decision, ruling that the BFU's actions were sufficient to avoid liability under the strict liability framework. The decision underscores that while host federations bear responsibility for spectator conduct, sanctions must be proportionate to the violation and account for the federation's efforts to address the issue. The case highlights the balance between strict liability in sports governance and the need for fairness in disciplinary measures. The CAS panel's ruling reinforces that federations should not be penalized when they take timely and effective action to rectify misconduct by spectators. The decision also clarifies the scope of CAS jurisdiction in FIFA disciplinary matters, ensuring that appeals are permissible in cases involving financial penalties.
Ultimately, the BFU's appeal was successful, and the fine was overturned. The panel partially upheld the BFU's appeal, annulling the fine while affirming FIFA's authority to initiate proceedings and the strict liability principle under Article 67 FDC. The decision underscores the discretionary power of FIFA's Disciplinary Committee in imposing sanctions based on contextual factors. The panel ruled that FIFA would bear the costs of the proceedings, while the BFU retained responsibility for the CAS court office fee. The case serves as a precedent for similar disputes involving disciplinary actions and jurisdictional questions in international football, emphasizing the principles of accountability and due process in sports governance.