The case between Galatasaray Sportif Sinai A.S. and UEFA, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), centered on disciplinary sanctions imposed on Galatasaray for misconduct by its supporters during a UEFA Champions League match against Borussia Dortmund on November 4, 2014. The incidents included supporters throwing flares, fireworks, and other objects, causing match interruptions and stadium damage, as well as a non-violent pitch invasion. UEFA's Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body initially fined Galatasaray €70,000 and ordered compensation for damages. Galatasaray appealed, arguing insufficient security and minor involvement of supporters, while UEFA's Ethics and Disciplinary Inspector cross-appealed for a closed-doors match sanction. The UEFA Appeals Body partially upheld the fine and imposed a suspended closed-doors match sanction, leading Galatasaray to appeal to CAS.
The CAS, with sole arbitrator Lars Hilliger, upheld UEFA's sanctions, rejecting Galatasaray's arguments. Key legal principles established included the definition of a supporter as someone whose behavior indicates club allegiance, the validity of cross-appeals under Swiss law and UEFA regulations, and the proportionality of sanctions. The arbitrator emphasized that clubs are strictly liable for supporter conduct under UEFA regulations, regardless of whether they are home or away. Galatasaray's claims of mitigating factors—such as the away match context, lack of organized travel for supporters, alleged security failures by Borussia Dortmund, and the non-violent nature of the pitch invasion—were dismissed. The CAS also confirmed the five-year recidivism rule, noting Galatasaray's history of similar offenses, which justified stricter measures.
The arbitrator found UEFA's sanctions proportionate, citing CAS jurisprudence that disciplinary bodies have discretion unless sanctions are "evidently and grossly disproportionate." The €70,000 fine and suspended closed-doors match order were deemed appropriate given the severity of the incidents and Galatasaray's repeated violations. The CAS rejected Galatasaray's argument that the sanctions violated the principle of reformatio in peius (prohibiting worsening an appellant's position), as the cross-appeal was procedurally valid. The ruling reinforced UEFA's authority to enforce disciplinary measures while respecting procedural fairness and proportionality.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Galatasaray's appeal, upholding UEFA's decision. The case underscored the strict liability of clubs for supporter behavior and the limited grounds for challenging disciplinary sanctions in sports governance. The arbitrator concluded that Galatasaray failed to demonstrate the sanctions were disproportionate or that mitigating circumstances warranted leniency, affirming the importance of maintaining order and safety in football competitions.