The case involves an appeal by Galatasaray Sportif Sinai ve Ticari Yatirimlar A.Ş. (Galatasaray) against a decision by UEFA's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) Adjudicatory Chamber, dated October 5, 2018. The dispute centered on the interpretation of UEFA's Financial Fair Play (FFP) Regulations and procedural rules, particularly Article 16(1) of the Procedural Rules, which governs the review of decisions made by the CFCB Chief Investigator. Galatasaray, a Turkish football club, had been found in breach of UEFA's break-even requirement due to financial deficits exceeding acceptable thresholds for the reporting periods ending in 2015, 2016, and 2017. A settlement agreement was initially concluded between Galatasaray and the CFCB Chief Investigator on June 13, 2018. However, the CFCB Chairman referred the decision to the Adjudicatory Chamber for review under Article 16(1), which allows for a review within ten days of the decision's communication. The Adjudicatory Chamber rejected the settlement agreement, deeming it inappropriate, and referred the matter back to the Investigatory Chamber for further investigation.
Galatasaray appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the Adjudicatory Chamber's decision was untimely, as it was issued nearly four months after the Chief Investigator's decision, far exceeding the 10-day limit stipulated in Article 16(1). The key legal issue was whether the 10-day limit applied to the completion of the review or merely its initiation. The Sole Arbitrator, applying Swiss law principles, emphasized that the interpretation of sports association rules should begin with the literal meaning of the text. The Arbitrator concluded that the 10-day limit referred to the deadline for the Adjudicatory Chamber to render its decision, not just to initiate the review. This interpretation aligned with the rule's purpose of ensuring swift proceedings to maintain the integrity of UEFA competitions and reflected the narrow scope of review, limited to manifest errors in the investigatory phase.
Both Galatasaray and UEFA agreed that the Adjudicatory Chamber's decision was untimely, rendering it invalid. The Arbitrator upheld Galatasaray's appeal, setting aside the Adjudicatory Chamber's decision and confirming the Chief Investigator's original decision and the Settlement Agreement as final and binding. The ruling reinforced the importance of procedural adherence and legal certainty in sports governance, emphasizing that associations must strictly follow their own rules. The case highlighted the tension between regulatory enforcement and procedural fairness, underscoring the need for clear, objective interpretation of sports regulations to uphold fairness and competition integrity. The decision also clarified procedural timelines under UEFA's FFP framework, balancing expediency with the rights of clubs under review. Ultimately, the matter was resolved without further proceedings, with the June 2018 decision and Settlement Agreement standing as the final resolution.