The case involves Lao Toyota Football Club appealing against a decision by the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) that declared the club ineligible for the 2018 AFC Cup due to alleged involvement in match-fixing. The dispute centered on the principles of res judicata and ne bis in idem, which prevent a party from being tried twice for the same offense. The Appellant argued that since the AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Committee (AFC DC) had previously dismissed all match-fixing allegations against them in February 2017, the AFC Entry Control Body (ECB) could not subsequently impose ineligibility based on the same facts. The Appellant contended this violated the ne bis in idem principle, which requires identity of parties, facts, and legal grounds for a retrial to be barred.
The AFC justified its decision under Article 12.8 of the Entry Manual, which allows declaring a club ineligible for one season if involved in match-fixing. The AFC argued that the ECB’s decision was an administrative measure distinct from the AFC DC’s disciplinary process, thus falling under an exception to ne bis in idem. They cited CAS jurisprudence recognizing a "two-stage process," where an initial administrative measure (like eligibility checks) can precede a disciplinary sanction without violating double jeopardy principles.
The CAS panel examined whether the ECB’s decision conflicted with the AFC DC’s prior acquittal. It found that while the AFC DC’s decision was disciplinary, the ECB’s ineligibility ruling was administrative, aimed at safeguarding competition integrity rather than punishing misconduct. The panel concluded that the ECB’s action did not violate ne bis in idem, as the measures served different purposes under separate regulatory frameworks. However, the majority of the panel later disagreed, ruling that the AFC’s actions violated ne bis in idem because the club had already been cleared of match-fixing charges in a disciplinary proceeding, and the subsequent administrative decision was based on the same facts.
The panel emphasized that the disciplinary decision was binding and could not be overturned through an administrative measure. Additionally, the AFC failed to inform the club during the disciplinary process that further eligibility restrictions might apply, leaving the club with no reason to expect further penalties. The panel acknowledged the AFC’s commitment to combating match-fixing but concluded that procedural failures could not justify a second penalty. Ultimately, the panel upheld the club’s appeal, declaring it eligible to participate in the 2018 AFC Cup. The decision underscores the importance of legal consistency and procedural fairness, ensuring that clubs are not subjected to multiple penalties for the same alleged misconduct. The panel also suggested that the AFC should harmonize its legal framework to prevent similar violations in the future.
The final ruling set aside the AFC’s decision, declared Lao Toyota eligible for the 2018 AFC Cup, and dismissed all other requests for relief. The case highlights the tension between enforcing anti-corruption measures in sports and respecting legal principles, clarifying that administrative eligibility checks must not conflict with prior disciplinary rulings. The decision balances the need for integrity in sports with the protection of clubs' rights against double jeopardy.