The case CAS 2013/A/3297 involves Public Joint-Stock Company "Football Club Metalist" (FC Metalist) appealing against decisions by UEFA and PAOK FC, stemming from allegations of match-fixing related to a 2008 Ukrainian league match. The Ukrainian Football Federation (FFU) sanctioned FC Metalist and its official, Mr. Krasnikov, for match manipulation. FC Metalist appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which in 2013 partially upheld the FFU's ruling, confirming the club's liability for match-fixing but overturning a points deduction. UEFA subsequently declared FC Metalist ineligible for the 2013/2014 UEFA Champions League under Article 2.05 of its Champions League Regulations, which grants UEFA discretion to assess evidence without being strictly bound by arbitral decisions. The CAS panel upheld UEFA's decision, emphasizing that evidence in match-fixing cases need not meet civil or criminal court standards, provided procedural fairness is maintained.
The panel affirmed strict liability, holding clubs accountable for their officials' actions in match-fixing, and ruled that Article 2.05 supersedes UEFA's general disciplinary regulations, making violations after April 2007 imprescriptible. FC Metalist argued the sanction was disproportionate and discriminatory, but the panel found no violation of proportionality or equal treatment, noting sanctions must balance misconduct and punishment. The case underscores UEFA's authority to enforce integrity measures, the admissibility of varied evidence in match-fixing cases, and clubs' strict liability for misconduct.
FC Metalist's appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal resulted in a stay of execution for the CAS award, but the club's requests for provisional measures with CAS were dismissed for failing to demonstrate irreparable harm. The CAS hearing in August 2013 involved arguments from both parties, with no witnesses called. The panel, composed of arbitrators from Denmark, Switzerland, and the UK, reserved its final award. FC Metalist sought relief including annulling UEFA's sanctions and reintegration into UEFA competitions, arguing the sanctions were based on a CAS award under appeal with suspensive effect. UEFA countered that the appeal was inadmissible due to lack of legal interest and failure to include affected parties like Maccabi Tel-Aviv FC.
The panel determined UEFA regulations and Swiss law applied, rejecting FC Metalist's claims that the violation was time-barred under UEFA's five-year statute of limitations, as match-fixing falls under "bribery or corruption," which is not subject to such limitations. The panel also dismissed arguments that the sanction was disproportionate, emphasizing the need for strong measures to combat match-fixing. PAOK FC supported UEFA's stance, arguing the appeal was inadmissible and stressing the importance of competition integrity.
Ultimately, the CAS panel upheld UEFA's decision, dismissing FC Metalist's appeal and confirming the one-year ineligibility sanction. The ruling reinforced UEFA's authority to enforce integrity measures and the strict liability of clubs for their officials' actions, highlighting the balance between fair treatment and maintaining the credibility of football competitions. The case illustrates the complexities of sports arbitration and the rigorous enforcement of anti-match-fixing regulations.