-
The burden of proof regarding a match-fixing offence lies with the sports-governing body and the applicable standard of proof shall be one of “comfortable satisfaction”. The standard of “comfortable satisfaction” is greater than a mere “balance of probabilities” but less than proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”, bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence committed. This does not mean that there is some sort of “sliding scale” within the standard of “comfortable satisfaction” depending on the seriousness of the charge, but that in case of serious allegations, the adjudicatory body should have a high degree of confidence in the quality of the evidence.
-
In match-fixing proceedings, the fact that no witnesses are called by the parties to testify before the CAS panel does not provide the latter with the benefit of hearing any direct evidence from the persons with direct knowledge of the match-fixing plot. Although this does not render inadmissible documents such as transcripts of interrogation or recordings, court decisions or witness statements presented as evidence, it does affect the quality of such evidence, because the CAS panel can only analyse the documents provided and finds itself in the position of assessing previous assessments.
-
Whenever an association uses its discretion to impose a sanction, CAS will have regard to that association’s expertise but, if having done so, the CAS panel considers nonetheless that the sanction is disproportionate, it must, given its de novo powers of review, be free to say so and apply the appropriate sanction.
Why not join us?
Football Legal is an independent media publishing football law contents on a daily basis dedicated to all football law practitioners (lawyers, clubs, federations, intermediaries, football stakeholders, etc.).
Register today and stay tuned to the latest legal news.
Get started