The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on 13 July 2016 in a case involving Vsl Pakruojo FK and several players against the Lithuanian Football Federation (LFF) concerning allegations of match-fixing. The dispute centered around two matches played in 2015, where suspicious betting patterns and player behavior raised concerns about match manipulation. The LFF had sanctioned the club and players based on reports from UEFA's Betting Fraud Detection System (BFDS) and expert analyses, which indicated irregularities in betting activities and questionable on-field actions. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Mr. Sofoklis Pilavios, and Mr. José Juan Pintó, examined key legal issues, including jurisdiction, the distinction between actual and presumed match-fixing, the burden of proof, and the proportionality of sanctions.
The panel confirmed its jurisdiction to review the LFF's decisions, emphasizing that internal remedies had been exhausted before the appeal reached CAS. The LFF's disciplinary regulations differentiated between actual match-fixing, requiring direct player involvement, and presumed match-fixing, based on suspicious behavior. Both types required the same standard of proof, with the burden on the LFF to establish the offense. Expert analyses of the matches served as evidence for presumed match-fixing, and once a presumption was established, the players had to rebut it with contrary evidence. The panel found the LFF's sanctions justified, as the expert evidence demonstrated suspicious betting activities, and the players failed to disprove these findings.
The CAS also noted its authority to review facts and law de novo, meaning any procedural violations by the LFF would be cured by the CAS proceedings. The sanctions imposed were deemed proportionate, considering the varying degrees of responsibility among the players. The panel referenced established CAS jurisprudence, which limits intervention in sanctions to cases of gross disproportionality, finding no grounds to alter the LFF's decisions. The appellants' claims of procedural defects and violations of fundamental rights were dismissed, as the CAS appeal provided a full and fair review. The panel upheld the LFF's decisions, dismissing the appeals and affirming the disciplinary measures. The ruling underscored the importance of maintaining integrity in football and the legitimacy of sanctions based on circumstantial evidence when direct proof of match-fixing is lacking. The case concluded with the CAS dismissing all relief requests and affirming the LFF's disciplinary actions.