The case involves PAE Giannina 1966, a Greek football club, appealing UEFA's decision to deny its participation in the 2013/2014 UEFA Europa League due to violations of financial regulations under UEFA's Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (CL&FFP). The Hellenic Football Federation (HFF) initially granted Giannina a UEFA license, but UEFA's Investigatory Chamber later identified discrepancies, leading to an investigation. An audit revealed the club had overdue payables of €1,290,000 to Greek tax authorities as of March 31, 2013, and had entered into a deferred payment agreement on May 28, 2013—two months after the regulatory deadline. The club also failed to disclose private employment agreements in its financial statements, breaching transparency requirements under Article 47 of the CL&FFP Regulations.
UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber ruled on June 26, 2013, that Giannina violated Articles 47 and 50 of the CL&FFP Regulations by failing to meet financial reporting and payment deadlines, rendering the club ineligible for the Europa League under Article 2.07(c) of the UEFA Europa League Regulations. Giannina appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing no violations occurred or that the exclusion was disproportionate. The CAS panel upheld UEFA's decision, emphasizing strict deadlines for financial compliance are essential for competition integrity and legal certainty. It found Giannina’s deferred payment agreement was concluded too late to meet the March 31 deadline and affirmed the undisclosed financial obligations breached transparency rules. The panel rejected the proportionality argument, stating a valid license is a non-negotiable condition for competition entry.
Giannina sought annulment of UEFA's decision, eligibility to compete, or a milder penalty, along with compensation for legal costs. The club challenged the jurisdiction of UEFA's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), arguing the case should have been handled by UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Body. It also denied breaching Articles 50 and 47, claiming no overdue payables existed and alleging violations of proportionality and equal treatment principles. UEFA countered that the CFCB was the competent authority under the 2012 CL&FFP Regulations and defended the decision as grounded in Article 19, maintaining the sanction was justified.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction and upheld UEFA's decision, finding Giannina ineligible due to unpaid debts and inaccurate financial reporting. The panel rejected arguments of disproportionality and unequal treatment, concluding exclusion was justified under the regulations. The case highlights the strict adherence to deadlines and regulatory compliance in UEFA competitions, emphasizing the importance of financial transparency and discipline in European club football. The ruling underscores that participation in UEFA competitions requires full compliance with licensing criteria, leaving no room for leniency. The CAS dismissed Giannina’s appeal, confirming UEFA's decision to exclude the club from the 2013/2014 Europa League.