what is it based on – Corriere.it

The storm that engulfed Juventus saw only the first act go on stage, with the sentence of the federal Court of Appeal at -15 which shook the standings and championship. Great anticipation for the arrival of the reasons: the judges have ten days to write them, and it is probable that it will therefore go to Monday 30 January, when (it is said) the 40-day extension for the closure of the investigations could also arrive on wage bills.

however, the closing date for the bis section on capital gains has been set for 22 February, the one concerning exchanges with the companies defined as friends, indicated in the papers of the Turin Public Prosecutor’s Office in Sampdoria, Atalanta, Sassuolo, Empoli, Udinese. Impossible, at this stage, to say whether these two strands will end with further penalties: in that case, Juventus’ lawyers could ask that it be considered the constraint of the continuation of the offencesarguing that all three strands are part of a single supposed criminal design, which would allow to avoid monstrous sums of penalties. But it is too early to talk about it.

It is much more urgent to understand what can happen to the Guarantee Board at Coni, which, as is well known, can only evaluate issues of legitimacy. From the reasons, the Juventus lawyers (Sangiorgio, Bellacosa, Apa) have 30 days to present the appeal. Difficult not to address the issue of ne bis in idem or the legal principle according to which one cannot be judged twice for the same fact: article 63 of the sports justice code allows the revocation of an acquittal decision in the presence of new facts the knowledge of which would have implied a different pronunciation. The new facts in this case the papers of the Turin prosecutor’s office are considered (and because no new facts have emerged on the other clubs that only Juve has been condemned): beyond the merits, the overcoming of the ne bis in idem it also implies considerations of law, which concern the interpretations of the norms (new facts different from new evidence, say for example the lawyers).

Timing of revocation

Article 63 also peremptorily establishes the times within which to act for revocation, 30 days from discovery of the fact. The FIGC prosecutor’s office appears to have requested the new documents from the Turin prosecutor’s office on 27 October (and various newspapers spoke of a trip by an emissary of the federal prosecutor’s office to Turin that day), but he filed them with the chancellery on November 24th. The attorney Chin presented the appeal on 22 December and therefore respecting the deadlines, but Juventus wonders when the attorney actually had the documents available. Formal issues, precisely, those that the Guarantee Board must consider.

Sports loyalty

Like the one regarding the dispute of the violation of the famous article 4, on sporting loyalty, on the basis of which Juventus was penalized in points (and which punishes the general behavior of the club, beyond the individual exchanges of players): in the disputed referral to the managers but not to the club, called to answer only for violations of article 31 (administrative offences) and of article 6 on direct and objective responsibility for the work of managers. For the Public Prosecutor’s Office it is enough to extend the 4 to the company as well, for lawyers a process is being celebrated with another type of contestation. Finally, a question that concerns respect for the right to defense, because a note from the federal prosecutor’s office sent to Covisoc on April 14, 2021 was not filed and therefore made available to lawyers. Enough to make the College decide to cancel or refer to the Court of Appeal for a new trial?