The case involves FC Gelsenkirchen-Schalke 04 appealing a disciplinary sanction imposed by UEFA for violations of safety regulations during a UEFA Champions League match. The dispute centered on whether Schalke supporters blocked stairways in the stadium, contravening Article 38 of the UEFA Safety and Security Regulations, which mandates that all public passageways must remain unobstructed to ensure spectator safety. UEFA fined Schalke €10,000 based on reports from its delegate, who observed supporters standing on stairways throughout the match, rating the situation as unsatisfactory. Schalke contested the sanction, arguing that the stairways were not fully blocked and provided photographic evidence to support their claim. However, UEFA upheld the fine, citing the regulatory assumption that official reports are accurate unless proven otherwise, placing the burden of proof on the club to demonstrate inaccuracies.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld UEFA’s decision, emphasizing the autonomy of sports associations under Swiss law, which grants UEFA broad authority to enforce safety regulations. The panel ruled that Article 38 of the UEFA Safety and Security Regulations clearly requires stairways to be kept free of any obstructions, not just those impeding spectator flow. The CAS also affirmed the regulatory assumption that UEFA’s reports are presumed correct, shifting the burden of proof to the club, which failed to sufficiently disprove the delegate’s observations. Additionally, the panel noted that recidivism rules apply, meaning repeated offenses within five years could lead to stricter penalties.
Schalke argued that UEFA lacked the authority to impose sanctions for alleged breaches of safety and security regulations, as these matters fall under German law and the responsibility of local authorities. The club contended that UEFA's safety regulations, unrelated to the actual conduct of the sport, could conflict with state regulations, creating an unacceptable risk for clubs. The case highlighted the tension between UEFA's association autonomy and the mandatory statutory regulations of host countries, particularly concerning spectator safety and security. Schalke's position was that the organizer of a football match must primarily adhere to state rules, not additional regulations imposed by a sports association, unless those regulations directly protect individuals involved in the competition.
UEFA defended its authority to establish safety regulations under the principle of association autonomy, citing its objectives to promote fair play and ensure match integrity. The organization argued that Schalke had agreed to abide by UEFA regulations by participating in the competition and had previously accepted sanctions for similar violations without appeal. UEFA maintained that its official reports, which noted blocked stairways, carried a presumption of accuracy, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant. It dismissed the club’s evidence, including photographs and statements from local authorities, as insufficient to overturn the delegate’s findings. Additionally, UEFA presented video footage allegedly showing significant obstructions caused by spectators, reinforcing its stance that the violations posed serious safety risks.
The Sole Arbitrator emphasized the proportionality of UEFA's rule, noting that while standing or sitting on stairways may not always lead to incidents, it poses a significant risk in emergency situations, as demonstrated by past tragedies like the 1985 Heysel stadium disaster. The rule was deemed a light intervention, as spectators have assigned seats and can stand in front of them without obstructing stairways. UEFA's autonomy allows it to impose stricter safety standards than state regulations, provided there is no direct conflict. The arbitrator found no such conflict here, as state rules did not require standing on stairways. The practicality of UEFA's rule was highlighted, as it avoids the impracticality of constantly monitoring whether obstructions impede spectator flow.
Schalke provided photos of certain stadium sectors to demonstrate compliance, but these did not cover the sectors where the violation was reported. Witness testimony acknowledged that supporters often stood on stairways but claimed they self-organized, maintaining safety. The arbitrator ruled that UEFA's regulations apply universally, without exceptions for self-organizing groups. Schalke also deleted video footage of the match, citing German data protection laws, though legal scholars argued such footage could be retained for evidentiary purposes. UEFA presented video clips showing obstructed stairways, contradicting Schalke's claims.
The arbitrator concluded that Schalke failed to provide evidence for all relevant sectors and that the deleted footage could have clarified the situation, confirming the violation of Article 38. Regarding sanctions, Schalke contested the application of recidivism rules, arguing that a fine should not be treated as a repeat offense under a five-year