The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a dispute between ŠK Slovan Bratislava and UEFA concerning disciplinary sanctions imposed on the club following incidents during a UEFA Europa League match. The case involved multiple violations, including the display of a flag associated with Nazi symbolism, the use of pyrotechnics, and the throwing of objects. UEFA had initially sanctioned the club, and the case was later appealed to CAS. The CAS upheld UEFA's jurisdiction to act as a first-instance body under exceptional circumstances, as permitted by Article 34 of the UEFA Statutes. It clarified that procedural flaws, such as the failure to provide an observer’s report during initial proceedings, could be remedied by CAS’s de novo review power. The tribunal emphasized that a party cannot challenge procedural deadlines if it had previously consented to them and submitted well-researched arguments without requesting extensions.
Regarding the flag displayed by Slovan Bratislava supporters, the CAS determined that it resembled the war flag of Germany under National Socialism, despite modifications in color and text. The tribunal applied the "reasonable onlooker" test under Article 14 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, concluding that the flag was an insult to human dignity and a disguised substitute for Nazi symbols. The fact that similar displays had not always been sanctioned in the past or were permitted under national laws did not justify its use in this context. The CAS found the cumulative sanctions—a fine, partial stadium closure, and a suspended ban on ticket sales for away supporters—proportionate, particularly given the club’s history of repeated offenses. Additionally, the tribunal upheld penalties for pyrotechnic use and object-throwing, noting that personal injury caused by fireworks was an aggravating factor.
The appellant, ŠK Slovan Bratislava, argued that the sanctions were disproportionate and that the flag’s display did not constitute racist behavior. They contended that the stadium closure should be limited to the specific sector where the flag was displayed and that the fine was excessive compared to similar cases. UEFA defended the sanctions, emphasizing the flag’s connection to Nazi ideology and the club’s history of similar violations. The CAS rejected the appellant’s arguments, noting that the "reasonable onlooker" test is objective and does not require proof of intent to insult. The tribunal also dismissed claims of procedural irregularities, as the CAS’s de novo review cured any prior violations of the right to be heard.
The decision reinforced UEFA’s authority to enforce disciplinary measures against discriminatory behavior and emphasized the importance of maintaining dignity and safety in football. The CAS’s ruling affirmed the sanctions while ensuring procedural fairness through its comprehensive review. The case underscores the zero-tolerance approach to symbols associated with hate and violence in sports. The appeal was dismissed, and all other motions or requests for relief presented by the appellant were also rejected. The CAS's decision concludes the legal proceedings, upholding the validity of UEFA’s initial sanctions.