The case involved KF Skënderbeu, an Albanian football club, appealing sanctions imposed by the Albanian Football Association (AFA) for alleged match-fixing during the 2015/2016 season. The AFA's Ethics Committee had sanctioned the club based on reports from UEFA's Betting Fraud Detection System (BFDS), which indicated suspicious betting patterns and on-field irregularities in several matches. The Committee concluded that the club was involved in match-fixing, leading to severe penalties, including the revocation of its league title, a fine, and a points deduction for the following season. The club denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that the proceedings violated procedural fairness.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) examined the case, focusing on whether the AFA Ethics Committee had the authority to sanction the club without concrete evidence of direct or indirect involvement by club officials or players. The CAS panel emphasized the importance of legal certainty and due process in disciplinary proceedings, drawing parallels to criminal law principles such as nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (no crime or punishment without law). The panel criticized the AFA's reliance on a "new practice" under Article 134 of the AFA Disciplinary Code, which allowed sanctions based on suspicion rather than proven misconduct. The panel found this approach lacked clarity and had not been communicated to clubs beforehand, rendering it impermissible for definitive disciplinary actions.
While the CAS acknowledged the reliability of BFDS reports in identifying potential match-fixing, it noted that the evidence in this case did not conclusively link the club to the alleged misconduct. The panel also highlighted procedural flaws, including the club's claim that it was not properly notified of the accusations and denied access to key evidence. The AFA defended its actions, arguing that the high volume of BFDS reports and the club's association with suspicious betting trends justified the sanctions, even in the absence of direct proof. However, the CAS ruled that disciplinary measures must be based on clear, established rules and concrete evidence to ensure fairness and predictability.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the club's appeal, overturning the AFA's sanctions. The decision reinforced the necessity of transparent and well-defined regulatory frameworks in disciplinary proceedings, particularly in cases with severe consequences for the accused. The ruling underscored the balance between combating match-fixing and upholding fundamental principles of legal certainty and procedural fairness in sports governance. The CAS concluded that while protecting the integrity of sports is paramount, disciplinary bodies must operate within clearly communicated rules and evidentiary standards to avoid arbitrary or unjust outcomes.