The case involves Fenerbahçe SK appealing disciplinary sanctions imposed by UEFA due to misconduct by its supporters during a UEFA Europa League match against FC Bate Borisov on 21 February 2013. The match was played behind closed doors, but supporters outside the stadium launched fireworks that landed inside, causing a small fire, disrupting the game, and endangering players and officials. UEFA's Control & Disciplinary Body sanctioned Fenerbahçe with a €60,000 fine, a requirement to play the next match behind closed doors, and a deferred two-year ban from UEFA competitions. The Appeals Body upheld this decision, prompting Fenerbahçe to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel examined several legal issues, including the strict liability principle under UEFA's Disciplinary Regulations (DR). Article 6(1) of the UEFA DR holds clubs strictly liable for supporter misconduct "at a match," which extends beyond the stadium to actions affecting the match. The panel clarified that "at a match" includes incidents like fireworks launched from outside the stadium that disrupt play inside. The panel also addressed the burden of proof, noting that official reports are presumed accurate unless disproven by the club. Fenerbahçe argued that strict liability violated Swiss law and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but the panel rejected this, stating the principle does not deny a fair hearing or breach procedural public policy.
The panel found the sanctions proportionate, considering the seriousness of the offense and Fenerbahçe's prior disciplinary record, which included previous supporter misconduct incidents. While the club's security measures and cooperation with authorities were acknowledged as mitigating factors, they were insufficient to overturn the sanctions. The CAS upheld UEFA's decision, reinforcing the strict liability principle and emphasizing clubs' responsibility to ensure order and security, even in matches played behind closed doors.
Fenerbahçe contested UEFA's classification of the perpetrators as its supporters, arguing they were unrelated criminals. However, the panel noted inconsistencies in the club's arguments, as it had previously identified some individuals as responsible during UEFA proceedings. Video evidence and official reports supported UEFA's claim that the perpetrators were affiliated with the club. The panel upheld UEFA's broad interpretation of "supporter," aligning with prior CAS rulings that emphasize behavior and context over strict definitions.
The panel also dismissed Fenerbahçe's challenge to the probationary period attached to the sanctions, clarifying that UEFA's regulations unambiguously state that further offenses during this period would trigger the original penalty. The CAS affirmed the proportionality of the sanctions, referencing established jurisprudence that penalties must not be "evidently and grossly disproportionate" to the offense. The fine and deferred ban were deemed appropriate given the club's recidivism and the need for deterrence.
Ultimately, the CAS panel dismissed Fenerbahçe's appeal, upholding UEFA's decision in full. The ruling underscores the importance of clubs maintaining control over their supporters and the consequences of failing to address repeated misconduct. It also reaffirms the legitimacy of UEFA's disciplinary framework, including the strict liability principle, as a necessary tool for maintaining order in football. The case serves as a precedent for clubs' responsibilities in managing supporter behavior and the legal boundaries of disciplinary measures in sports governance.