what is written and why it is important – Corriere.it

The famous Covisoc card now in the hands of the lawyers of Fabio Paratici, former Juventus director and Juventus manager Federico Cherubini. The FIGC lawyers handed it over after the The Council of State today rejected the request for suspension

notified yesterday by the Federation itself and the council chambers have been set for the 23rd to discuss it.

In fact, beyond the content of the charter, which we will see later and which can also be disappointing, what was pressing for the FIGC was to underline the autonomy of sports justice, the sports ruling, on the basis of which it is permitted to address the state judge only when the sporting judgment was completed with the third degree and not halfway through the process.

The FIGC had requested the one-time precautionary measure, therefore an urgent decision: once the document was delivered to the defence, it was obviously not possible to go back. But for the Council of State, the pronouncement reads, there are no hypotheses of extreme gravity and urgency, linked to damage that can be defined as catastrophic and therefore the council chamber can be expected. Outdated by delivery, as stated.

The Covisoc Charter

But what’s in this famous Covisoc paper, dated April 14, 2021, registered with number 10940

? It’s six pages sent by the prosecutor Chin to the president of Covisoc Boccardelli, with a copy of the federal president Gravina, in which the interpretative clarifications on the capital gains affair and in which Juventus is never mentioned. a summary of how the jurisprudence has been expressed on the subject.

it is important because according to the Juventus lawyers this is where the investigation must start, thus backdating the terms, which would make the request for revocation which led to the sentence of -15 penalty points out of time. this is one of the reasons for the bianconeri’s appeal to the guarantee college, and for this reason that the defenses pressed to get possession of it and for this reason that the Tar’s decision was interpreted as a point scored by Juventus. But everything to be established that the Board of Guarantee sees in this paper the beginning of the investigation. For the prosecutor’s office and for the FIGC it is only an internal writing of no relevance and which must not be included in the procedural documents. The objective, as mentioned, was to protect the autonomy of the sporting procedure.

But let’s see what he says once and for all. We start by considering past cases of capital gains such as the related ones to exchanges between Chievo and Cesena and between Perugia and Atalanta. For example, we recall the story of the first players who carried out a systematic transfer market operation, not just an episodic operation, linked to the value attributed intuitu personae to the particular hypothetical talent that can be found in one or more players, inevitably aimed at overestimating the budget through, in fact, the system of ccdd. “capital gains”. But above all he remembers why it was so difficult to establish objective evaluations of the players. However, this Panel believes it is not possible to adhere to the quantification criteria operated by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, sharing on this point the defensive thesis of the transferees from Verona, according to which uniform and objective evaluation criteria of the effective value of the player are lacking.

Once the past cases are remembered there is the conclusion that explicitly says where sufficient elements emerge to corroborate the need to investigate the cases. According to this sentence, it would seem that the notitia Crimilis did not yet exist on that date and therefore it would be difficult to start the investigation from there. On the basis of these considerations in law, which this Public Prosecutor’s Office cannot disregard in the exercise of its prerogatives by investigators and prosecutors, it is clear that the exercise of disciplinary action in this matter, in a methodological logic of continuity with respect to the assessments already carried out in the previously examined disciplinary relevant cases, may be usefully prosecuted where sufficient elements emerge to corroborate the need to investigate cases which reasonably lead us to believe that the existence of operations for the exchange of players between two or more professional clubs, in terms of the systematic nature of the same market operations, is not an episodic operation, aimed at overestimating the balance sheet data of the same companies through, in fact, the ccdd system. Capital gains. I believe, however, that these considerations can usefully apply – from a methodological point of view – for any circumvention of the data recorded in the financial statements which alter their reliability, also mentioned in the note indicated in the subject.

(article being updated)