Juventus, Board of Guarantees: FIGC Court motivation lacking, re-evaluate club responsibilities

Listen to the audio version of the article

The Federal Court of Appeal of the FIGC will have to reconsider the position of some managers and consequently the extent of the sanction to be imposed on Juve.

This is the point that last April 20 led the Guarantee College to refer the assessment of the capital gains case to the Federal Court of Appeal. Noting that “it is within the prerogatives of the judging body not only to give the exact legal classification of the disputed facts, but also (concretely) to impose an adequate sanction, among those envisaged, for the offense ascertained” and that Juventus, as company, «responds in any case, pursuant to art. 6 of the FIGC Justice Regulations, for the actions committed by its representatives and managers against whom the violation of art. 4 of the CGS of the FIGC», the Board believes that «the contested sentence, delivered against the directors without operational powers, is lacking in its reasoning part where the Federal Court – with reasons to be considered apparent – referred to a generic, but unproven, widespread awarenessor to an alleged sharing, by said administrators, of the concrete details and purposes of the sporting operations scrutinized, failing to provide adequate motivational support for such affirmed and unproven circumstances”.

«Considering, in fact, that the measure of the penalty imposed on Juventus is determined in relation to the ascertained violations of its representatives and managers, as well as its directors without proxy, the absence, due to the ascertained motivational defect, of the sanction for the latter it is reflected, at present, also on the overall sanction imposed on the company and therefore makes it necessary a new assessment by the Federal Court of Appeals on the possible responsibilities of individual directors without proxy and then also of Juventus itself – reads the motivations – The necessary relationship of proportion between the specific behavior held and the sanction imposed is now peacefully acquired in the elaboration of the jurisprudence, including the constitutional one, constituting a logical expression of the criteria of equality and reasonableness of the sanction and requiring the judge to proceed with a dosimetric evaluation inspired by the two aforementioned criteria”.