The case involves a complex legal dispute between Trabzonspor, the Turkish Football Federation (TFF), UEFA, and Fenerbahçe, stemming from allegations of match-fixing during the 2010-2011 Turkish Super League season. Trabzonspor appealed a decision by the UEFA Appeals Body (UEFA AB) to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging UEFA's authority to impose sanctions related to domestic match-fixing and raising issues of legal principles such as res judicata and ne bis in idem. The CAS panel, composed of experienced arbitrators, addressed these matters in its award dated 27 March 2017.
The principle of res judicata, which prevents the same dispute from being litigated again, was examined under the "triple identity test," requiring identity of parties, subject matter, and legal grounds. The panel found that the subject matter of Trabzonspor's appeal differed from previous disputes, rendering res judicata inapplicable. Similarly, the principle of ne bis in idem, which prohibits double jeopardy, was deemed irrelevant because the parties and scope of relief sought in the current appeal were distinct from prior proceedings. The panel also noted that the previous decision-making body did not meet Swiss law's impartiality requirements, further undermining these defenses.
Standing to appeal was another critical issue. Under Article 62(2) of the UEFA Statutes, only parties directly affected by a decision may appeal to CAS. The panel ruled that Trabzonspor, as the runner-up in the league, had standing due to its direct sporting interest, but rejected the standing of other Trabzonspor entities for lack of proof of direct affectation. The panel also examined UEFA's competence to sanction domestic match-fixing, concluding that UEFA's disciplinary regulations apply only to offenses affecting UEFA competitions, not domestic leagues. Therefore, UEFA lacked authority to impose sanctions on Fenerbahçe for violations in the Turkish Super League.
The factual background revealed a lengthy history of investigations and proceedings in Turkey and before UEFA. Trabzonspor finished second to Fenerbahçe in the 2010-2011 season amid match-fixing allegations. Turkish authorities conducted criminal and disciplinary investigations, resulting in sanctions against Fenerbahçe officials but not the club itself. Trabzonspor sought redress through various channels, including appeals to TFF and UEFA, but was unsuccessful in overturning the league standings or securing further sanctions against Fenerbahçe.
Trabzonspor's legal arguments included claims of contractual breaches under Swiss and Turkish law, alleging a simple partnership among the parties aimed at generating income through football. The club also invoked Swiss trust-based liability, arguing UEFA failed to combat match-fixing, and cited breaches of personality rights under Swiss law and Turkish competition law. Trabzonspor sought damages, including the annulment of Fenerbahçe's title and financial compensation for lost revenues.
The respondents—TFF, UEFA, and Fenerbahçe—countered that UEFA's jurisdiction was limited to its own competitions and that Trabzonspor lacked standing to appeal. They argued that applying later UEFA regulations would be ex post facto and emphasized that the match-fixing allegations had already been addressed in prior proceedings. The CAS panel ultimately affirmed that UEFA's disciplinary powers are confined to its competitions and cannot extend to domestic matters. The decision underscored the importance of jurisdictional boundaries in sports governance and reinforced the principle that domestic issues should be resolved by national authorities.
The ruling provided clarity on res judicata, ne bis in idem, and standing requirements in sports arbitration, while dismissing Trabzonspor's broader claims. The case highlights the challenges of addressing match-fixing allegations across multiple regulatory bodies and the need for clear legal standards in sports disputes. The panel's decision upheld the UEFA AB's dismissal of Trabzonspor's requests, concluding that UEFA had no authority to intervene in domestic match-fixing cases.