The case involves French footballer Djibril Cissé and the French Football Federation (FFF) appealing against a disciplinary decision by UEFA following an incident during a match between France and Portugal on November 18, 2003. Cissé was shown a direct red card for violent conduct—kicking an opponent—after being fouled by Portuguese players. The referee also noted his delayed exit from the field and aggressive behavior toward match officials, including insulting remarks directed at the fourth official. UEFA initially suspended Cissé for five matches, a decision upheld on appeal despite the disciplinary inspector recommending a reduction to four matches due to mitigating circumstances. Cissé and the FFF then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking a further reduction to two matches.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction, as UEFA's statutes allow for appeals to the CAS, and both parties had agreed to this through procedural orders. The CAS emphasized that violent conduct in sports broadly covers any act threatening physical integrity, even without injury, and rejected the argument that being fouled justified Cissé's retaliation. Players are expected to control themselves and let referees handle disciplinary matters. The CAS also noted that mitigating circumstances suggested by the disciplinary inspector did not bind UEFA's decision-making bodies.
Regarding concurrent offenses (violent conduct and insulting the referee), the CAS applied UEFA's rules on cumulative sanctions, avoiding automatic stacking of penalties. It found one of the offenses cited by UEFA's appeals body unproven, warranting only a one-match increase from the minimum sanction. Consequently, the CAS reduced Cissé's suspension from five to four matches, balancing the severity of the offenses with procedural fairness. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining discipline while ensuring proportional penalties.
The CAS dismissed part of the appeals, upholding the modified suspension and leaving the allocation of costs to be determined. The ruling highlighted the balance between disciplinary rigor and fairness in sports governance. The CAS also addressed Cissé's post-expulsion behavior, finding it normal and dismissing the claim of improper conduct. However, it confirmed that Cissé had insulted the fourth official, a separate offense under UEFA regulations. The FFF argued that audio evidence of the insult was inadmissible, but the CAS rejected this, stating participants implicitly consent to audio-visual recording during matches. Cissé himself admitted to using insulting language.
Ultimately, the CAS determined Cissé committed two offenses: violent conduct (three-match suspension) and insulting an official (two-match suspension). Applying the principle of concurrent offenses due to the interconnected nature of the incidents, the CAS imposed a four-match suspension instead of five. The decision considered Cissé's exemplary disciplinary record and fair-play reputation. The CAS partially upheld the appeals, annulling the five-match suspension and setting the final suspension at four matches. This ruling reflects a balanced approach, weighing the severity of the offense against the player's previous conduct and the need for fairness in sports adjudication.