The case involves a dispute before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between PAOK FC, the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF), and Panathinaikos FC, stemming from incidents during a Greek Cup semi-final match between PAOK and Olympiakos Piraeus on April 16, 2014. The match was marred by severe fan misconduct, including the throwing of flares, firecrackers, smoke bombs, and even a banana onto the pitch, as well as multiple pitch invasions and altercations between players and supporters. These disruptions caused significant delays and security breaches, leading the HFF Disciplinary Committee to impose sanctions on PAOK, including a €50,000 fine, a two-match spectator ban, and a three-point deduction. The HFF Appeals Committee later modified the penalty, specifying that the points deduction would apply only to rankings for international competitions.
PAOK appealed the decision to CAS, arguing that the incidents did not meet the criteria for "extensive disturbances" under the HFF Disciplinary Code and that the sanctions were disproportionate. PAOK also sought to overturn the points deduction to secure its eligibility for the UEFA Champions League. The HFF and Panathinaikos contested CAS jurisdiction, asserting that the HFF Statutes did not explicitly grant CAS authority over domestic disputes and that the HFF Court of Arbitration was the proper forum. The jurisdictional debate centered on whether the HFF Statutes, which refer disputes to "another independent and impartial court," implicitly included CAS. The CAS Panel concluded that this language did not automatically confer jurisdiction to CAS, as the HFF had established its own arbitration body for resolving internal disputes.
The Panel emphasized that FIFA regulations allow national federations discretion in designing their judicial systems, provided they comply with FIFA's requirement for independent arbitration. Since the HFF Statutes designated the HFF Court of Arbitration as the primary forum for appeals, CAS could not assume jurisdiction without explicit statutory authorization. The Panel also dismissed PAOK's reliance on UEFA Statutes, which grant CAS jurisdiction over disputes of European dimension, noting that this argument was raised too late and did not apply to the appeal procedure in question. Ultimately, the Panel ruled that CAS lacked jurisdiction and dismissed PAOK's appeal, leaving the HFF's decision intact.
The case highlights the complexities of sports arbitration, particularly the importance of clear jurisdictional provisions in national federation statutes. It underscores that CAS cannot intervene in domestic disputes unless explicitly authorized, reinforcing the principle that national associations retain primary authority over their disciplinary processes. The decision also illustrates the challenges of balancing fair disciplinary measures with the procedural rights of clubs, as well as the broader implications for team eligibility in international competitions. The outcome serves as a reminder of the need for precise statutory language to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and ensure consistent application of sports governance rules.