The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on June 14, 2023, regarding the appeal by Edgars Gauračs against UEFA’s decision to sanction him for alleged involvement in match-fixing. The case centered on two matches in 2018, where Gauračs, then General Director of FK Spartaks Jurmala, was accused of failing to promptly report match-fixing approaches and withholding critical information. UEFA initially imposed a ten-year ban, later reduced to three years by its Appeals Body, citing violations of Articles 12(2)(d) and (e) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, which mandate immediate reporting of suspicious behavior and full cooperation with investigations.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Martin Schimke, Mrs. Yasna Stavreva, and Mr. Jacopo Tognon, reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. Gauračs claimed procedural violations, including breaches of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and argued that UEFA’s investigation was flawed and delayed. He also contested the interpretation of a suspicious voice message from an Azerbaijani national, Ruslan Bagirovs, which UEFA alleged was a bribe offer. Gauračs maintained the message referred to betting patterns, not match-fixing, and highlighted his cooperation with authorities, including reporting the initial approach by Dmitry Aydov.
The panel upheld UEFA’s finding that Gauračs violated Article 12(2)(e) for Match 1 by delaying the disclosure of Aydov’s identity for 17 days, breaching the obligation to report immediately. However, it deemed the violation minor, considering Gauračs’ fear for his safety and his eventual cooperation. For Match 2, the panel found UEFA failed to prove Gauračs’ involvement in match-fixing, citing inconsistencies in the evidence, including conflicting expert reports from Sportradar and Starlizard, and the acquittal of Bagirovs in Latvian criminal proceedings. The panel emphasized that UEFA’s burden of proof, while lower than criminal standards, was not met for Match 2.
Regarding sanctions, the panel ruled the three-year ban disproportionate for Gauračs’ passive role and minor breach. It noted mitigating factors, such as his lack of prior experience, genuine safety concerns, and contributions to anti-match-fixing efforts. Comparing similar cases, the panel reduced the ban to 15 months, accounting for time served since October 2021. The decision balanced UEFA’s zero-tolerance policy with fairness, underscoring the importance of clear reporting obligations and proportional penalties. The CAS dismissed other claims, including procedural violations, and upheld the remainder of UEFA’s decision, reinforcing the need for transparency and cooperation in safeguarding football integrity.