What happen. The decision on the penalty of 15 points – Corriere.it

Will we know the real Serie A standings tonight? Perhaps. There are no certainties on the eve of the guarantee panel called to judge the appeal presented by Juventus regarding the capital gains case and the 15-point penalty decided by the Federal Court of Appeal.

The only ones at the moment are the start time (14.30, but the sentence may not arrive in the day), the place (the Board at Coni but a completely autonomous body), those present: the defenses of the company and of the executives referred, by Lambs to Paratici, while the Board meets in united sections, and in addition to the president Gabriella Palmieri Sandulli composed of the presidents of the other sections. On the other hand, there will be no FIGC which could have intervened ad aiuvandum of the accusation supported by Hugh TaucerAttorney General of Sports, but the president Gravina has decided not to turn himself in, staying out of purely matters of law (given that an administrative management is being evaluated which was not decisive for the registration in the Juve championship).

The rules of engagement are also secure: the Board of Guarantee decides in fact on grounds of legitimacy, that the law and its procedures have been respected, but can also intervene for omitted or insufficient reasons regarding a decisive point. In the end, it will be able to confirm the penalty (at which point, once the course in sports justice is closed, the club could appeal to the Tar), annul it in its entirety or refer the trial to the Court of Appeal for a new evaluation. In that case the 15 points would currently be returned. Making predictions is a dangerous exercise, but the third way is the one on which many bet one euro (no more).

Juventus’ appeal based on nine points. First of all, it disputes the legitimacy of the revocation: as is known, the company had been filed for capital gains, but the sentence was revoked because new facts (contained in the Turin papers) occurred which, if known, would have directed the previous judgment in a different way. In the meantime, for Juve’s defense there are no new facts, then it is not the FIGC code that prevails but that of the Coni which speaks of revocation only in the event of a factual error and then once the first referral has been decided, the prosecutor can no longer request the revocation .

Other important points of the defense are that the club was convicted of a new illegal act that has never been contested, or rather not the individual operations, but the fraudulent system on which it was not possible to defend; that the -15 modulation has not been sufficiently motivated; that article 4, i.e. the lack of loyalty, was in the disputed referral to the managers and not to the club and that the famous Covisoc note would anticipate the start of the proceeding by making the disciplinary action void. There is a basic question: what relationship will the two proceedings on Juve have, this one and the one on salary maneuvers and the bis capital gains for which the investigations have just concluded? Formally none, but the contestation is disloyalty for both. And somehow the judges could take this into account.