Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Conrt of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v. UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

ARBITRAL AWARD
rendered by the
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT
sitting in the following composition:
President:
Arbitrators:

Mr. Massimo Coccia, Professor and Attorney-at-law, Rome, Italy
Mr. Philippe Sands QC, Professor and Barrister, London, England
Dr. Mattin Schimke, Professor and Attorney-at-law, DUsseldorf, Germany

Ad hoc clerk:

Mr. Francisco A. Larios, Attorney-at-law, Florida, USA
in the arbitration between

Football Association of Albania
Represented by Prof. Dr. Antonio Rigozzi, Attorney-at-law, Geneva, Switzerland-Appellant andUnion des Associations Europeennes de Football (UEFA)
Represented by in-house counsel Dr. Emilio Garcia and Mr. Carlos Schneider, Nyon, Switzerland- Respondent Football Association of Serbia
Represented by Dr. Marco Del Fabro and Mr. Roy Levy, Attorneys-at-law, Winterthur,
Switzerland- Intervening Party -*****ChE1teau de F3fithusy /\v. do !3eaurnont2 Cl'i-·1012 Lausr_lll!H~ Tf:l: +tf'l :tl G13l50 00 Fc1x: -1-41 2'1 613 50 0'1

www.tas--cas.or~J

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportTABLE OF CONTENTSI.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 2

II.

THE PARTIES ........................................................................................................................ 2III.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 2IV.

RELEVANT REGULATIONS ............................................................................................. l3

V.

DECISION OF THE CEDB AGAINST THE FAA ............................................................ l7

VI.

DECISION OF THE CEDB AGAINST THE FAS .............................................................. l9

VII. DECISION OF THE UEFA APPEALS BODY ................................................................... 20
VIII. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT .................. 22
IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PARTIES' POSITIONS .................................................................. 26
IX.!
The Appellant: Football Association of Aibania ........................................................ 26
IX.2
The Respondent: UEFA ............................................................................................. 36
IX.3
The Intervening Party: Football Association ofSerbia .............................................. 39
X.

JURISDICTION AND APPLICABLE LAW ...................................................................... 45
X. I
Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................ .45
X.2
Applicable Law .......................................................................................................... 46

XL MERITS .............................................................................................................................. .47
XLI
Dismissal of Appellant's request for production of submissions
in CAS 2015/A/3875 Football Association of Serbia v. UEFA ................................. 47
XI.2
The chants .................................................................................................................. .48
Xl.3
The drone and banner incident .................................................................................... 52
X1.4
The abandonment of the match ............................................................................. ,..... 57
XII.

COSTS ................................................................................................................................ 71

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for Sporl
CAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 2I.

INTRODUCTIONI.

The present case centers on incidents that occurred during a qualifying match, held in
Belgrade on 14 October 2014, for the 2016 UEFA European Championship between the
Serbian and Albanian national football teams, including the abandonment of said
match. This appeal is brought by the Football Association of Albania (hereinafter the"Appellant" or "FAA") against a decision of the UEFA Appeals Body dated 2
December 2014 (hereinafter the "Appealed Decision") upholding (i) the decision of theUEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (hereinafter also the "CEDB") against the
FAA dated 23 October 2014, which sanctioned that association with a 0:3 forfeit of theaforementioned match and with a fine of EUR 100,000, and (ii) the decision of the
CEDB against the Football Association of Serbia also dated 23 October 2014, whichsanctioned that association with a deduction of three points in the 2016 UEFA
European Championship qualifying round, two home matches behind closed doors anda fine ofEUR 100,000.

II.

THE PARTIES

2.

The Appellant, the Football Association of Albania, is the football governing body in
the Republic of Albania. It is a member of F1FA and UEF A and has its headquarters inTirana, Albania.

3.

The Respondent, the Union des Associations Europeennes de Football (also referred toas "UEFA" or the "Respondent"), is the governing body of European football and oneof the six continental confederations of FIFA. It has its headquarters in Nyon,
Switzerland.

4.

The Intervening Party, the Football Association of Serbia (also referred to as the"Intervening Patty" or the "FAS"), is the football governing body in the Republic of
Serbia. It is a member of FIFA and UEF A and has its headquarters in Belgrade, Serbia.

III.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5.

This section of the award sets out a brief summary of the main facts, as relevant and as
established on the basis of the Patties' written submissions, the CAS file and thehearing that took place on 17 April 2015. Additional facts are set out, where material, inother parts of this award.

6.

On 14 October 2014, the national teams of Serbia and Albania played each other in aqualifying match for the 2016 UEFA European Championship (hereinafter also the"Match"). The Match took place at the Partizan Stadium in Belgrade, Serbia. The

'Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 3

Match referee was Mr. Martin Atkinson, from the United Kingdom (hereinafter also the"Match Referee").
7.

In attendance at the Match were 25,550 spectators. Due to an agreement reached
between the FAS and the FAA, no tickets were sold to Albanian supporters. As
reported by the UEFA Match Delegate (Mr. Harry Been), only approximately I 00
individuals linked to and invited by the FAA (representatives, staff, sponsors, family
and the like) attended the Match.

8.

Prior to the commencement of the Match, the director of international relations of the
FAA informed the UEFA Match Delegate that its president had been hit by a piece ofconcrete as he stood on the sidelines in the tunnel corner of the stadium.

9.

According to a report of FARE (Football Against Racism in Europe) and as confirmed
by various video clips submitted by the Appellant and examined by the Panel prior toand during the hearing, shortly before kick-off, during the pre-Match ceremony whenthe Albanian national anthem was played, and then 'throughout the Match, the Serbian
supporters made various chants, including "Ubi, Ubi Shiptara" (translated from Serbian
to English as "Kill, Kill the Albanians") and "Kill and slaughter them [the Albanians]
until there are none l~ji".

I 0.

In the stands, the Serbian supporters displayed various nationalistic banners containingreferences to Kosovo ("Kosovo is Serbia" and "The Orthodox candles in Kosovo, no
one ever will erase"), as well as banners depicting Vojislav Seselj and Veljko
Radenovic, political and military figures involved in the Kosovo conflict.

II.

During the first half of the Match, prior to the 42nd minute, Serbian supporters wereobserved to engage in various other activities, including: (i) throwing a fire cracker onto
the field from the section near the players' tunnel in minute 13; (ii) burning a NATOflag in minute 14; (iii) setting off two flares, one of which was thrown onto the field
and landed by the corner flag nearest to the players' tunnel in minute 15; (iv) using alaser pointer to disturb Albanian players and influence a Serbian corner kick in minute24; (v) throwing a number of flares and objects when the Albanian side attempted totake a corner kick in minute 35; and (vi) throwing two large lumps ofrock towards the
Albanian side's technical area in minute 38. The occurrence of these incidents is not
disputed by the Parties and is documented in the official repmis of the Match Referee
and UEFA officials.

12.

It is also undisputed by the Patties and confirmed in the same reports that in minute 41of the Match a number of unknown Serbian supporters set off and threw a number offlares, one of which landed on the field. On account of this incident, the Match Referee
decided to stop play.

Tribunal Arbitral du Sporl
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/ N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 413.

During this stoppage, a drone carrying a banner depicting the map of an area that issometimes referred to as "Greater Albania" - an area said to comprise the territory of
Albania along with various pmis of Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Northern
Greece, as well as Kosovo, and considered to form the lost national homeland of
Albanians - and which also carried several Albanian nationalistic symbols was seen tohover above the playing field. Upon spotting the drone, one of the Serbian players, Mr.
Danko Lazovic, alerted the Match Referee of its presence. The Match stoppage
continued while the drone was still hovering over the field.

14.

Eventually, the drone began descending closer to the ground, until it was observed tocome within reaching distance of a Serbian player, Mr. Stefan Mitrovic, who reached
for the banner and began pulling the drone down by the cords from which the banner
hung.

15.

As soon as Mr. Mitrovic grabbed the banner, two Albanian players, Mr. Andi Lila and
Mr. Taulant Xhaka, were seen to approach him and to snatch the banner from his hands.
At this point a greater chaos erupted across the playing field.

16.

The Serbian substitute players were observed to leave their bench and run onto the field
towards the commotion, and one of them was observed to head butt Mr. Xhaka on theback of the head.

17.

As this was occurring, a number of Serbian supporters invaded the field. The exact
number is unclear, as the video footage submitted in these proceedings does not allow
the number to be ascertained with precision. The Intervening Party acknowledges thatabout 15 Serbian supporters invaded the field, whereas the Appellant contends that their
number was considerably higher. In the Panel's view, based on the examination of thesubmitted video clips, the invaders were anyhow a significant number.

18.

One of the invading Serbian supporters was observed to take hold of a plastic chair(which appertained to one of the security stewards around the field), and to then run
with it to the rim of the center circle, and then use the chair to hit one of the Albanian
players, Mr. Bekim Balaj, on the shoulder. This same Serbian supporter then attempted
to tackle Mr. Balaj, but instead took down the Albanian captain, Mr. Lorik Cana, who
had intervened, apparently to prevent an escalation of the scuffle. As they fell to theground, a security steward was seen to run towards them and, with his fist seen to be
clenched, to throw punches. Although it is disputed between the Pmties whether thepunches were aimed at the Albanian player or the Serbian supporter, the Panel has
reached the view, on the basis of a close examination of the evidence, that the steward
was trying to hit the Albanian player.

19.

In other parts of the playing field the following facts were observed: (i) a Serbian
suppmier punched the Albanian player, Mr. Mergim Mavraj; (ii) a Serbian substituteTribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 5player punched the Albanian player, Mr. Ermir Lenjani, in the face; (iii) a Serbian
substitute player punched the Albanian player, Mr. Orges Shehi; (iv) a notorious
Serbian suppotter, Mr. Ivan Bogdanov, accompanied by other supporters, walked
calmly around the field waiving and clapping his hands to incite the crowd (Mr.
Bogdanov is recognised as an individual who took center stage in, and faced criminal
charges for, incidents that occurred in 2010 during the 2012 UEFA European
Championship qualifier match between Italy and Serbia); and (v) a Serbian suppmter
reached the Albanian bench area and attacked a member of the Albanian delegation.
20.

The Serbian suppmters were observed to throw objects, including chairs, at the
Albanian side's bench from the stands.

21.

Throughout these events the Match stoppage continued. Due to the chaos and massive
disorder, the Match Referee ordered, with the aim of securing the players' safety, all theplayers to head back into the locker rooms. At the underlying UEFA Appeals Body
hearing of December 2014 (hereinafter the "UEFA Hearing") the Match Refereedeclared: "The reason I took the players off the field was because of the spectators'
incursion onto the pitch, and obviously the disturbances between people on the field ofplay. I took them offfor their safety."

22.

Following the Match Referee's instructions, the Albanian players ran towards theplayers' tunnel in order to exit the field. As they approached the tunnel, the Serbian
supporters were seen to be throwing objects towards the Albanian players, including
coins, bottles and chairs. At the entrance of the players' tunnel, the Albanian players
were met by two suppmters who physically attacked them with violent shoves, punches
and kicks.

23.

One of these two Serbian supporters, after attacking the Albanian players at theentrance of the tunnel, subsequently walked to the nearest corner flag and calmly sat
down beside it. No security personnel approached him. He remained there until one of
the Serbian players urged him to leave the field. As the supporter stood up, one of the
security stewards was observed to stand right in front of him and to wave his anns up
and down as though to encourage the crowd to chant louder. After the security steward
passed, instead of returning to the stands, as the Serbian player had urged him to do so,
the Serbian supporter attempted to enter the players' tunnel. A security steward who
was inside the players' tunnel stopped him from doing so and finally escorted him off
the field.

24.

According to the Appellant, many Albanian players suffered injuries as a result of theattacks of the Serbian supporters, including swells and cuts (to the ears, neck, hands andfingers) shown on pictures taken in the dressing rooms and exhibited in this arbitration.
The Respondent and the Intervening Party dispute the origin of such wounds, claimingTribuna! Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for Sporl
CAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 6that they could have been incurred while the Match was in play. Mr. Harry Been (theUEFA Match Delegate) and Mr. Vincent Egbers (the UEFA Security Official) bothtestified at the UEFA Hearing that they witnessed said injuries. The Match Referee, on
the other hand, testified at the UEFA Hearing that he did not personally see them butthat he was informed of them by the Albanian captain. The Panel harbours no doubt, on
the basis of the evidence examined and taking into account the type of injuries at issue,that the cuts and other physical harms said to have been done to the Albanian players
were a result of the events here described, and did not occur during the course of match
play.
25.

Once all players and officials returned to their respective dressing rooms, a crisis groupmeeting (hereinafter the "Crisis Meeting") was held. It was attended by the Match
Referee Mr. Mattin Atkinson, the UEFA Match Delegate Mr. Harry Been, the UEFA
Security Officer Mr. Vincent Egbers, the UEFA Referee Observer Mr. Lutz Michael
Frohlich, the FAS General Secretary Mr. Zoran Lakovi6, the Serbian national teammanager Mr. Aleksander Boskovi6, the FAA President Mr. Armand Duka, and the FAS
Security Officer Mr. Milivoj Mirkov. During this time, according to the evidence before
the Panel, the UEFA officials were in constant dialogue with the UEFA Match Centre
in Nyon (Switzerland), and in particular with Mr. Kenny Scott, the UEF A Consultant
and Security Adviser.

26.

The UEFA personnel at the UEFA Match Centre apparently encouraged the UEFA
officials in the Belgrade stadium to try and resume the Match. At the UEFA Hearing,the Match Referee testified "My recollection of the phone calls [with the UEFA MatchCentre] was ve1y much that we needed to t1y to get the game resumed. They wanted totry to play the game. We needed to. But we had to make sure that everything was safe
before we did this ... once the security was ensured then yeah, we were encouraged totry to play the game." Similarly, Mr. Kenny Scott gave the following testimony at theUEFA Hearing: "!said [to the UEFA Security Officer and the Match Referee] that in
the opinion of those in the UEFA Match Centre, which included Mr. Marchetti [UEFADirector of Competitions], that if the match could be started again then it should be.
The match should be resumed if possible. But of course, that is a decision for thereferee. Additionally, the UEFA Match Delegate, Mr. Harry Been, testified at theUEFA Hearing (when asked the opinion of the UEFA Match Centre during the Crisis
Meeting) that "the opinion of UEFA is always to continue the match. To t1y to continue
the match, ·which is clear. That's why we are here. To play matches against each other.
And it's up to us to judge, at the situation, local, to see what must be done. So, ·we justas far as I'm concerned !just informed them about what happened."

27.

The evidence before the Panel indicates that the UEFA officials in Belgrade were of theview that the Match should continue, once safety was ensured.

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 728.

While the game was suspended, the FAS security officials gave assurances that extra
police forces and stewards were being sent in the stadium to control the unruly
suppotters and increase the level of protection of the playing field.

29.

In the dressing rooms, the Match Referee and the UEFA Match Delegate spoke to bothteam captains and asked them whether they would be prepared to continue the Match.

30.

The Albanian captain, Mr. Cana, however, declared that his team was not physicallyand mentally prepared to restart the Match. Mr. Cana signed a declaration to this effect,
which was prepared by the UEFA Match Delegate. The typed text of the declaration
reads: "1, Lorik Cana, captain of the Albanian National Team declare that my team,after what happened around the 40'11 minute of the .first half of the match Serbia vs.
Albania on 14 October 2014 my team is physically and mentally not able to restart thegame. And they feel not safe at all. I told this to the referee and the delegate, in thepresence of my President mr Duka". To this, Mr. Cana, added in handwriting prior tosigning the document: "the physical injuries of many of my players, don't allow us tokeep playing, and we were even attacked by the securities of the stadium."

31.

Thereafter, the Match Referee decided to abandon the Match.

32.

At the UEFA Hearing, the Match Referee, the UEFA Match Delegate and the UEFA
Security Officer all testified about the aforementioned Crisis Meeting and thesubsequent abandonment of the Match.

33.

The Match Referee testified, inter alia, as follows:
FAS Counsel: When-or is it correct to assume that you had to consult withsecurity officials during the break in order to decide whether to go back on thepitch or not?
Match Referee: Yeah, that's true, yeah.
FAS Counsel: But the final decision was taken by you as the referee?
Match Referee: I think the final decision is between myself and the match
delegate as to the.ftnal decision of the game will not continue.
FAS Counsel: And is it correct to assume that you and the UEFA delegate took
the decision to continue to the match?
Match Referee: We tried to continue the game, yeah. We left as long as we
possibly could to fly to get the game played Unfortunately, it didn't commence.
FAS Counsel: And then you communicated this also to the two teams?
Match Referee: Yeah.
FAS Counsel: And after you communicated that to the teams, what was thereaction of the Albanian team?
Match Referee: The Albanian team didn't want to continue the game. They

Tribumil Arbitral du Sporl
Court of Arbi tnJtion for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 8made it clear they didn't want to continue the game. Just one of those
unfortunate things that they wouldn't continue.
[" .]UEFA Judge Maessen: And then the last question is, did you in any way showthat you ordered both teams to restart the game?
Match Referee: I got both captains in, and both teams representatives into ourchanging room 4 with theUEFA Judge Maessen: So, two persons of each?
Match Referee: Two of each into the changing rooms and explained to themthat once the security is safe to take them back out again we had a number ofminutes to play, plus additional time, and then we would have half time. So,
they were aware of this, both teams. Both countries aware of this. So, we
explained that fitlly to them before we tried to get them to go back onto thefield.
[" .]UEFA Judge Eilers: I would like to continue on [the question concerningwhether] you gave both teams, and in particular the Albanian team and captainclear instructions on the order to continue the game. That the game must becontinued. Or-this is in dispute, this is why I have to ask about this again. Did
you only communicate to them that you were going to attempt to continue thegame?
Match Referee: No, both teams were told that the game was to be played. We
must go out and continue the game. There was no debate. This was, we will goout and continue the game. The Albanians re.fitsed.
UEFA Judge Eilers: So, there was an immediate order from you to the
Albanian team, to the Albanian captain, your team must continue?
Match Referee: Both teams were told they must go out and continue the gameonce we ensured the safety.
UEFA Judge Eilers: So, the Serbian team followed your proposal and the
Albanian team did not. Now, the Albanian team is saying that there was noclear instruction .fi-om your side to continue the match. This is an important
point.
Match Referee: Both teams were told that they must return to the .field ofplay
and continue the game once the safety was ensured.
[" .]FAA Counsel: .. .Did you have any understanding for the position of the
Albanian captain or was that nonsense to you? At the relevant time?
Match Referee: Do you mean in the changing room?
FAA Counsel: Yes.

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 9Match Referee: I totally understood the captain. But to be fair, and !must state
this, both captains were superb. They were really, really helpfitl. They tried tocooperate. They tried to work with me, and Jfidly understood both captains andbothfee/ingsfi'om these.
FAA Counsel: Yeah, and then when he says we are not going back, do you sayson)' but you have to go? That's what I think ·what was the question. And I'm
not sure that you really answered that because your answers was yes, I ordered
to resume the game, and then your words were once the safety is ensured. If
that's the order you gave, it's a conditional order to the players.
Match Referee: Both teams, both captains were aware that they had to go backout and continue the game.
34.

Additionally, the Match Referee testified at the UEFA hearing that had he, instead of
the Albanian player, been hit with a chair, he would have abandoned the match at that
time.

35.

The UEFA Match Delegate, Mr. Been, made the following testimony on the subject of
the abandonment of the match at the UEF A hearing:
FAA Counsel: And then you say we of course had contact with UEFA and had
the intention to restart the match. That's something that I'm taking from yourreport ...
UEFA Match Delegate: Yes.
FAA Counsel: What do you mean by intention?
UEFA Match Delegate: Well, we always have the intention to restart the match
because the intention to be there is to play fitll time match. So, that's always theintention.
UEFA Match Delegate: Well, to be honest, the decision was not to restart thematch so it was not-we didn't have to check whether the safety security wasokay. The match was stopped because the Albanian players didn't want to playagain. So, it was-if they would've said yes, the Albanian players, then we would
have to check of course ourselves. Also, make a judgment on the security
situation. We didn't come that far because the Albanian players said no.
[ ... ]FAA Counsel: ... You had a direct contact with the Albanian captain during thediscussion?
UEFA Match Delegate: Yes.
FAA Counsel: Yeah, did you t1y to convince him and his teammates to restart
the match? Come on, let's go and?
UEFA Match Delegate: No.
FAA Counsel: Let's do it.

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 10

UEFA Match Delegate: No, no, no. What I did I was-to be honest he was quite
convincing, and also the atmosphere between the two captains was ve1y
positive. It was an atmosphere of cooperation between the two. But the
Albanian captain was quite clear. Said my team, my people, the players, they
are hurt. They are not only physically hurt, but also emotionally hurt. They've
had contact with home. They've phoned, and I'm sure, we just cannot startagain. It's no question. We don't care about the point. I remember all the
person said. We don't care about point or winning or losing. We just cannot
start again. We are concerned about the safety of our people.
FAA Counsel: And when you said that he was convincing, you meant you could
agree with that. I mean, it makes sense to you.
UEFA Match Delegate: No, it was not a matter of agreement. No, l-it was, hereally meant it. And what I did was I told them, listen if one of the two teams infootball doesn't want to continue it's a severe matter. You must realize that. And
I told him that not only once but twice. But he was completely convinced, and I
could understand that. So, there was no point in telling him come on, let's playor something like that. The man ·was convinced that he couldn't play. And all
the people over there with his team, it was not a matter of convincing. It wascompletely clear situation.
[ ... ]

UEFA Ethics and Disciplinary Inspector: ... can [you] tell me ![when you werein the dressing room ·with a meeting with referees, security officials, the teamcaptains and officials, are you aware of the referee telling the captains of theteam that play would continue?
UEFA Match Delegate: Yes, the-we discussed. Sony. We discussed with both
captains what to do, and we made clear that our intention was to continue toplay. But Mr. Can a, the captain ofAlbania made it clear fi'om the beginning onthat there >vas no way that his team would continue to play.
[ ... ]

UEFA Judge Eilers: But we heard fi'om you that you didn't try and find out
about the security situation immediately before resuming the ...
UEF A Match Delegate: Yes that's correct.
UEFA Judge Eilers: But how are you able to instruct players to continue
playing without being sure that security was guaranteed?
UEFA Match Delegate: No. That's not the way it went. We discussed with theplayers that our intention was to continue to play. And then they reji1sed tocontinue to play. If they would have said yes, then the next step would havebeen that we would go out and convince ourselves that the circumstances
would be good enough to continue to play.
UEFA Judge Eilers: I imagine that I am the team captain, and I would want toknow what responsibility I would assume if I try and convince my players to goout. I would have to be sure that security is guaranteed. You say security at that

T'ribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page II

point was not guaranteed. At that point when you asked players to continue you
are saying the security had not been yet guaranteedUEF A Match Delegate: I didn't ask the players to continue, as of yet. We just
had the general intention is to continue to play. And it was not a matter that thecaptain asked us ~whether the circumstances were okay. He had made a
judgment of himself and he thought that-and the emotional and the physicalcircumstances were such that they couldn't continue to play. Even, there was noother question at stake at that voy moment.
36.

The UEFA Security Officer, Mr. Vincent Egbers, testified on this subject at the UEFA
Hearing as follows:
UEFA Security Officer: I'll tell you again that the-when I came into thedressing room there were two captains, and the Albanian captain told thereferee we won't go back again. We are mentally and physically not able to go
back. We won't. We don't care about the points. Then he said we have to makean announcement together with the Serbian captain because we are ji-iends andwe can make a difference. We can do something about this because this is not
football. That is a discussion. And he said we won't go back.
[ ... )FAS Counsel: But again, I mean, if they had accepted to continue, the match
would have been continued?
UEFA Security Officer: It was possible, yes.
FAS Counsel: It was possible to continue the match?
UEFA Security Officer: Yes, but it was never a real decision because thecaptain really told us it doesn't matter ~what you decide. We don't care about
the points. We called our family. We are safe and want to stay safe and that's it.
We're not going back in.
37.

After the Match Referee abandoned the Match, the Serbian police frisked the Albanian
players and staff and conducted a search of the Albanian locker room and luggage,
apparently in an attempt to find the drone's control device. No such device was found.
This is confirmed by the testimony of the UEFA Match Delegate and the UEFA
Security Officer at the UEFA Hearing, as well as by the Additional Delegate Repmt(see inji·a at para. 41 ), in which the UEFA Match Delegate wrote the following: "The
Serbian policy body searched the Albanian team because they thought they might havethe drone in their possession. That was not vety much appreciated and we had to assist
to keep the Albanian team trust that evoything would go in the right way. Nothing was
found in possession of the Albanian squad ... ".

38.

On 15 October 2014, the day after the Match, several official reports in relation to the
Match were filed to UEFA - one by the Match Referee, two by the UEFA Match
Delegate, one by the UEFA Security Officer and one by the UEFA Referee Observer.

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

39.

page 12The Match Referee's report, specifically with relation to the incidents connected withthe drone and the abandonment of the Match, offered the following declaration:"As the drone lowered down, the flag was taken hold of by a Serbian defender
who was quickly approached by players from Albania ... This soon escalated
into a number of players becoming involved in a mass confrontation. I wasaware that players and stafffi·om both technical areas had run onto the pitch,followed by spectators and a mass confrontation situation occurred withseveral pockets of incidents occurring all over the pitch. I saw a spectator hit
an Albanian player with a plastic chair on the field.
I decided to take the players off the field ofplay to try to protect them for theirown safety. The Albanian players were subject to objects being thrown at themas they left the field towards the tunnel.
A meeting was held in the referees changing room with discussions between the
Match Delegate Mr Harry Been, the UEFA security officer Mr Vincent Egbers
and officials fi'om the home security. The match officials and Referee observer
Mr Lutz Michael Frohlich were also present in these discussions.
It became obvious that we would try and continue to play the remaining time
due for the .first half. I requested to speak to the captains of both teams with
their team managers. Whilst speaking with the two captains the Albaniancaptain No 5 CANA informed us that they were unwilling to play again due totheir physical and mental ~wellbeing. He stated that several players were
injured .from the incidents on the pitch and were physically and mentallyaffected by the experience. They refitsed to re-enter the pitch and play thegame.
I had constant dialogue with UEFA during this time to keep the Match Centre
aware of the situation.
All the match officials, security and the Serbian team were ready to commence
the game and due to the Albanians refusing to enter the pitch and continue thematch was abandoned at 2210 hours."

40.

In the UEFA Match Delegate's first official report (hereinafter the "Delegate Report"),it was noted that (i) the FAS' security was "Unsatisfactmy"; and (ii) the crowd
behaviour of the home team was "Unsati~factmy".

41.

Then, in his second official report (hereinafter the "Additional Delegate Report"),which was an addendum to the Delegate Report, the UEFA Match Delegate added interalia:"I also went [to the dressing rooms] and together with the referee, my otherUEFA colleagues we had a meeting with the two captains and the two match
managers. We of course had contact with UEFA and had the intention torestart the match again for the remaining 4 (+ 2) minutes in the first half.
Serbia was willing to, the security officials agreed but the Albanian team was
not ok. Even after going back to his team to discuss it, the captain of Albania,

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 13

Lorik Cana, declared officially that they were not able to go back on the pitch.
For physical, mental and security reasons. So at 22.10 the referee decided thatthe match could not be restarted again ... A short public announcement wasmade and the people left the stadium ... Interesting to see is that there werearound 4000 policemen active in the stadium, we had [a] jill! circle of riot
police around the pitch and still people could invade the pitch. Worthwhile tonotice is there is nobody arrested. Even not the people who entered the pitch."

42.

The UEFA Security Officer noted in his official report, inter alia, that: (i) the protectionof the playing area was not adequate; (ii) the behaviour of the home supporters wasvery bad; (iii) the brother of the prime minister of Albania had been arrested for
operating the drone but that after 45 minutes he was released because he did not holdthe remote control device for the drone; (iv) the performance of stadium management
was poor as there was no information about the hooligans that gathered in the section of
the stadium where the players' tunnel was located; (v) FAS security stewards and theriot police tried to keep the hooligans from invading the field but were unsuccessful;and (vi) there was a lot ofriot police available and many of them were sent inside thestadium but they could not protect the players and officials.

43.

Finally, the UEFA Referee Observer made the following observations, inter alia, in his
official report:"A meeting was held in the referees changing room with discussions between
the Match Delegate Mr Harry Been, the UEFA security officer Mr Vincent
Egbers and officials ji·om the home security. I was also there. In this meetingwere discussed all arguments to allow a continuation of the game. The aim
was, to continue to play with the remaining time due for the first half The
referee requested to speak to the captains of both teams with their teammanagers. Whilst he speaking with the two captains the Albanian captain No 5
CANA informed the referee that they were unwilling to play again due to their
physical and mental wellbeing. He stated that several players were injured
ji·om the incidents on the pitch and were physically and mentally affected by theexperience. They reji1sed to re-enter the pitch and play the game. I saw that all
the match officials, security and the Serbian team were ready to commence thegame. The [A]lbanian team was not there. Due to the Albanians reji1sing toenter the pitch and continue the match the referee abandoned the match at
22:10 hours."

IV. RELEVANT REGULATIONS

44.

The following provisions of the FIFA Laws of the Game 2014/2015 (hereinafter also"LG"), the Regulations of the UEFA European Football Championship 2014-2016(hereinafter also "CR"), the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, Edition 2014 (hereinafteralso "DR"), the UEFA Organisational Regulations, Edition 2014 (hereinafter also"OR"), and the UEFA Statutes are relevant to this case:'T'ribmml Arbitral du Sport

Courl of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

45.

page 14Law 5 LG ("The referee") provides:"The authority ofthe referee
Each match is controlled by a referee who has fiAl authority to enforce the Laws of
the Game in connection ~with the match to which he has been appointed.
Powers and duties
The Referee:••

enforces the Laws of the Game
controls the match in cooperation with the assistant referees and, whereapplicable, with the fourth official[" .]• stops, suspends or abandons the match, at his discretion, for any infringementsof the Laws
• stops, suspends or abandons the match because of outside inte1jerence of any
kind
[" .]
• ensures that no unauthorised persons enter the field ofplay• indicates the restart of the match after it has been stopped• provides the appropriate authorities with a match report, which includes
information on any disciplinwy action taken against players and/or team
officials and any other incidents that occurred before, during or after thematch.
Decisions o[the referee
The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or
not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.
The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his
discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth official, provided that hehas not restarted play or terminated the match."
46.

Article 27 paras. 0 I and 02 CR ("Re.firsal to play and similar cases") provides:"27.01 If an association re.firses to play or is responsible for a match not taking placeor not being played in fir!!, the UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body takes a decisionin the matter.
27.02 The UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body can validate the result as it stood at
the moment when the match was abandoned if the match result was to the detriment of
the association responsible for the match being abandoned."

47.

Atticle 6 DR ("Disciplinwy measures") provides:"I The following disciplinary measures may be imposed on member associations andclubs:a) warning;b) reprimand;

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 15c) fine;d) annulment of the result of a match;e) order that a match be replayed;f) deduction ofpoints (for the current and/or afiilure competition);g) order that a match be jOJfeited;h) playing of a match behind closed doors;i) firll or partial stadium closure;j) playing of a match in a third country;k) withholding of revenues ji·om a UEFA competition;l) prohibition on registering new players in UEFA competitions;m) restriction on the number of players that a club may register for participation inUEFA competitions;n) disqualification Fom competitions in progress and/or exclusion from firturecompetitions;o) ·withdrawal of a title or mvard;p) withdrawal of a licence;q) community football service.
[ ... ]

3 Fines must not be less than €I 00 or more than €I, 000,000. In the case ofindividuals, a fine may not exceed €IOO,OOO.
4 The above-mentioned disciplinary measures may be combined."48.

Article 8 DR ("Responsibility") provides:"A member association or club that is bound by a rule of conduct laid down inUEFA 's Statutes or regulations may be subject to disciplinary measures anddirectives if such a rule is violated as a result of the conduct of one of its members,
players, officials or supporters and any other person exercising a fimction on beha(fof the member association or club concerned, even if the member association or theclub concerned can prove the absence of any fault or negligence."

49.

Article 14 DR ("Racism, other discriminat01y conduct and propaganda") provides:"I Any person under the scope of Article 3 who insults the human dignity of a person
or group of persons on whatever grounds, including skin colour, race, religion or
ethnic origin, incurs a suspension lasting at least ten matches or a specified period oftime, or any other appropriate sanction.
2 If one or more of a member association or club's supporters engage in the
behaviour described in paragraph I, the member association or club responsible ispunished with a minimum of a partial stadium closure.

3 The following disciplinmy measures apply in the event of recidivism:a) a second offence is punished with one match played behind closed doors and a fineof€ 50,000;b) any subsequent offence is punished with more than one match behind closed doors,a stadium closure, the forfeiting of a match, the deduction ofpoints or disqualification
ji·om the competition.

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 16

4 If the circumstances of the case require it, the competent disciplinmy body may
impose additional disciplinmy measures on the member association or club
responsible, such as the playing of one or more matches behind closed doors, astadium closure, the fmfeiting of a match, the deduction of points or disqualificationfrom the competition.
5 If the match is suspended by the referee because of racist and/or discriminatory
conduct, the match may be declaredfmfeit.
[ ... ]."
50.

A1ticle 16 para. 2 DR ("Order and security at UEFA competition matches") provides:"2 However, all associations and clubs are liable for the follo·wing inappropriate
behaviour on the part of their supporters and may be subject to disciplinmy measuresand directives even if they can prove the absence of any negligence in relation to theorganisation of the match:[ ... ]e) the use ofgestures, words, objects or any other means to transmit any message thatis not fit for a sports event, particularly messages that are of a political, ideological,
religious, offensive or provocative nature;[ ... ]."
51.

A1ticle 17 DR para. I ("General principles") provides:"I The competent disciplinmy body determines the type and extent of the disciplinary
measures to be imposed in accordance with the objective and subjective elements of
the offence, taking account of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances."
52.

Article 21 DR ("Forfeit") provides:"I If a match cannot take place or cannot be played in fill!, the member association
or club responsible forfeits the match.
[ ... ]

4 The consequences of a match being declared forfeit are as follows:a) the team fmfeiting the match is deemed to have lost 3-0 (5-0 in fittsal competitions),
unless the actual result is less favourable to the member association or club at fault,
in which case that result stands;b) ifnecessmy, the UEFA administration amends the member association or club's
ranking in the relevant competition accordingly.
5 If a match is declared forfeit, offences committed during the match remainpunishable."
53.

Atticle 38 DR ("Official reports") provides:"Facts contained in official UEFA reports are presumed to be accurate. Proof of theirinaccuracy may, however, be provided."
54.

Article 63 OR ("Appointment and cooperation [of UEFA Match Officers]") provides:

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 17"1. For each UEFA match, the UEFA administration appoints a match delegate and,if necessmy:a) a referee observer,b) a stadium and security officer,c) a doping control officer,d) a venue director,e) a media officer.
2. The role of the match delegate, referee observer and/or stadium and security officer
may be combined.
3. The match delegate is senior to any other UEFA match officers appointed for thematch.
4. All UEFA match officers are expected to cooperate with each other."55.

Article 63 OR ("Match delegates") provides:"Match delegates:a) act as UEFA 's official representative at a UEFA match;b) chair the organisational meeting prior to the match;c) are responsible for ensuring the orderly organisation of the match and that thecompetition regulations, and especially the rules for order and security inside andoutside the stadium before, during and after the match, are observed;[ ... ]."
56.

Article 65 OR ("Stadium and security officers") provides:"Stadium and security officers:a) monitor, assess and advise on safety and security matters for the match for which
they are appointed;[ ... ];
f) support the UEFA match delegates in their tasks, where appropriate;[ ... ]."
57.

Atticle 62 para. 2 of the UEFA Statutes provides:"Only parties directly affected by a decision may appeal to the CAS."V.

DECISION OF THE CEDB AGAINST THE FAA

58.

In the Decision of th(l CEDB against the FAA (hereinafter referred to as the "CEDB
Albania Decision"), it was held, with regard to the Appellant's responsibility for the
Match not being played in full, that:" .. .the decision to continue with the match ·which was taken by the referee wasagreed by two other UEFA officials (i.e. the delegate and the security officel),was refused by the [FAA] impeding the match to be played in filii.
[ ... ]

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 18... the [CEDB] deems that in cases as the one in hand in which the referee
decides to restart the match after having evaluated and consulted the situation
with the UEFA delegate and the UEFA security officer, who is, indeed, theexpert appointed in this matter for the match, the Association shall follow his
instructions merely because the match is to be presumed as complying with all
the security standards. In this regards, the organization offootball competition
matches would be otherwise chaotic if the organiser leaves the final decision toa club or an association, see interested party [sic].
In light of the above ... the CEDE concludes to its comfortable satisfaction thatthe [FAA] was responsible for the reji1sal to play the above mentioned match inaccordance with Article 27 UEFA European Championship 2014-2016
Regulations, and shall be punished accordingly."
59.

The CEDB further concluded that, once responsibility is established as per Article 27
EC and Article 21 DR, there is no room for the CEDE to maneuver and that the Match
must be declared a forfeit against the team responsible. Given that it had found a refusal
on the part of the Albanian national team to continue to play, the CEDB punished the
FAA with a 0:3 forfeit.

60.

With regard to the incident concerning the drone and the illicit banner the CEDB found:"Regarding to the responsibility of [the FAA], the [CEDB] takes thisopportunity to refer to a well establish[ ed] CAS jurisprudence as regards to thedetermination of the term "supporter". In this regard the CAS 2007/A/1217,
endorsed by the CAS 2013/A/3139 and CAS 2014/A/3324 and 3369, establishedthat the only way to ensure the responsibility of a club or association is to leave
the word "supporters" undefined so that clubs and/or associations, know thatthe Disciplinmy Regulations apply to, and they are responsible for any
individual whose behaviour would lead a reasonable and objective observer toconclude that he or she was a supporter of that club.
[ ... ]

Bearing the above in mind, the [CEDB] is at least conifortabl[y] satisfied that,indeed, the drone, attaching the banner with the map of the so called "Greater
Albania" and two figures, was controlled by one or several [FAA]
supporter(s). Briefly, all elements conforming the above mentioned incident
lead to this conclusion, being difficult to conceive that someone linked to the[FAS] would intend to use this situation in order to trigger the incidents thatlead to the violent disorder, the interruption of the match and the final reji1sal
by the [FAA] to continue with the game.
[ ... ]

Consequently, such misconduct undertaken by Football Association of Albania
supporters has no place in sports events and violates Article 16 (2) DR. The[FAA] shall, therefore, be held responsible and punished accordingly."

·rribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

61.

page 19

In assessing the appropriate sanction for this infringement of Article 16, para. 2 DR, the
CEDB applied Article 17 DR and took into consideration:"- the seriousness of the o.ffense committed, as it exceeds the boundaries ofwhat may be expected during an UEFA competition match- the potential risk to the safety of those persons attending the match, and, inparticular, the situation that may possibly have arisen if those controlling thedrone would have had other purposes- the fact that the incident occurred in a stadium full o.fspectators- the fact that the incident resulted in other extremely serious incidents
amongst players, staff members, supporters and security officers- the fact that this incident contributed to the final decision to leave the pitch- the fact that the incident took place in an UEFA European Championshipmatch, which is the flagship competition of UEFA and one of the mostimportant :.ports event ~world-wide."62.

The CEDB concluded that the extent of the sanction imposed had to fulfill thefollowing two conditions: (i) it must be a punishment for the FAA and (ii) it must detersuch incidents from happening again. Having regard to these points, the CEDB was
tempted to sanction the FAA by ordering a match to be played behind closed doors
under Article 6 para. !(h) DR; however, it opted instead to offer the chance to the FAA
to redeem itself before ordering such an extraordinary measure. Therefore, it decided
that it was more appropriate to impose on the FAA a fine of EUR I 00,000 for the drone
and illicit banner.

VI.

DECISION OF THE CEDB AGAINST THE FAS

63.

The relevant part of the Decision of the CEDB against the FAS (hereinafter also
referred to as the "CEDB Serbia Decision") provides as follows:"Regarding the nature of the above inFingements [including the chants "Kill,
Kill the Albanians" and "Kill Slaughter the Albanians until they are
exterminated'' and other illicit chants and banners], the [CEDB] cannot comply
with the assertion of the complainant as it is not comfortabl[y] sati~fled withthe view that the above incidents have a xenophobic background. It has been
comprehensively demonstrated in previous paragraphs that all the incidents
occurred during the above mentioned match are based on political reasons.
Therefore, the [CEDB] is not able to conclude to its comfortable satisfactionthat some of the attitudes showed by the [FAS] had xenophobic connotations,at least on the basis of the complaint, the FARE report and the UEFA official
reports. In this regard, the complainant fails to specifj1 in which extent thoseattitudes insult the human dignity in accordance with Article 14 DR, as well asTribunal Arbilr8l clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 20

it did not provide any evident that may lead the [CEDB] to deal with them on
this basis".

64.

Based on the above reasoning, the CEDB deemed the FAS to have infringed A1iicle 16para. 2(e) DR and not Article 14 DR. For this and a multitude of other infringements, as
previously mentioned, the CEDB sanctioned the FAS with a deduction of three points
in the 2016 UEFA European Championship qualifying round, two matches behindclosed doors and a fine ofEUR 100,000.

VII. DECISION OF THE UEFA APPEALS BODY
65.

On 2 December 2014, the UEFA Appeals Body adopted the decision now in appeal
before the CAS. On 22 December 2014, the same body issued the grounds for its
decision, summarized below, confirming the CEDB's decision.

66.

First, the UEFA Appeals Body held as inadmissible the FAA's appeal lodged against
the pmis of the CEDB Serbia Decision not related to the responsibility of the Matchbeing abandoned, reasoning as follows:"The Appeals Body notes that the Football Association of Albania was entitledto appeal against the [CEDB] 's decision sanctioning the [FAS] under Articles
31 and 53 DR. As the match has been declared forfeit, both teams are directly
affected and should have a say in the proceedings against each other.
Therefore, the appeal lodged by the [FAA] exclusively regarding the
responsibility for the match being abandoned and therefore being declared
forfeit is admissible. Consequently, the appeal lodged by the [FAA] against theother aspects of the decision rendered against the [FAS] is declare[d]inadmissible".

67.

Second, the UEFA Appeals Body considered the FAA's responsibility for the drone andillicit banner and concluded:"The notion of "supporter" mentioned in particular in Articles 8 and 16 of theDisciplinmy Regulations is not specifically defined in the UEFA regulations. In
particular, the regulations make no reference to the nationality, race, religion
or place of residence of the person who "suppotis" a team. Neither is thisnotion connected to the presence in the stadium of a person linked to the teamnor to the contract establish between a supporter and the national association
or club when the stpporter purchases a ticket. Finally, the UEFA regulations
make no distinction between supporters physically present in the stadium andthose outside the stadium (see the Appeals Body's ruling of 19 Janumy 2007 in
the case Feyenoord v UEFA and CAS award 2006/A/1217). In the present case,
it is therefore irrelevant ·whether the people responsible for displaying theforbidden banner carried by the drone were inside the stadium or not.
Indeed, the wording "( ... ) in relation to the organization of the match" in
Article 16(2) of the Disciplinary Regulations does not limit the association

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 21

member's liability for the misconduct of its supporters to the inner bounds ofthe stadium where the match is being played (CAS award 2013/A/3139, p. 15).
This includes any supporter misbehaviour that could affect the smooth runningof the match in question. it is therefore irrelevant whether the Albaniansupporters were in the stadium or not when the incident with the drone
occurred.
On page 9 of its award 2006/A/1217, the Court of Arbitration for Sport clearly
indicated that "the only way to ensure that responsibility is to leave the word
"supporters" undefined so that clubs know that the Disciplinary Regulations
apply to, and they are responsible for, any individual whose behavior would
lead a reasonable objective observer to conclude that he or she was a supporterof that club". In the same award, the Court of Arbitration for Sport adds that"the behavior of individuals and their location in the stadium and its vicinity
are important criteria for determining which team or club they support". It is
not necessmy for the person who misbehaves to be inside the stadium. In the
aforementioned case CAS 2013/A/3139, even though the match was being
played behind closed doors and the people who launched the fireworks wereapproximately away ji-om the stadium, the individuals concerned were stilllegally classified as supporters.
The message transmitted by the "Greater Albania" banner, and the attitude of
the Albanian players who rushed to take it jl-om the Serbian player Stefan
Mitrovic also demonstrate a close link between the banner and the Albaniansupporters.
In view of the above the Appeals Body is comfortably satisfied that the banner
carried by the drone was displayed by one or more Albanian supporters.
Therefore, in accordance ~with Articles 8 and 16(2) of the Disciplinary
Regulations, the [FAA] must be held responsible for its conduct and punishedaccordingly".

68.

Third, the UEFA Appeals Body addressed the abandonment of the Match. On thisissue, the UEFA Appeals Body was comfortably satisfied that the Match Referee (whounder Law 5 of the Laws of the Game was the only person with the power to stop,suspend or abandon the Match because of outside interference, as well as to resume the
Match) communicated to the Albanian national team his decision to resume the Match,
once safety was restored. Further, the UEFA Appeals Body found, "ajler having
analysed the testimonies of the UEFA officials, ... that the [FAA] reji1sed to restart thematch, even before having assessed the safety and security conditions of the match(which was done by Vincent Egbers, UEFA security officer .. .). It is clear from thisdisciplinwy body that the Albanian Team did not want to continue the game".

69.

Finally, the UEFA Appeals Body assessed the issue of sanctions and decided asfollows. For its violation of Article 27 CR and 21 DR, the UEFA Appeals Body heldthat the FAA must forfeit the Match 0:3. As regards the drone and illicit banner, theUEFA Appeals Body decided that a fine of EUR I 00,000 would be appropriate,Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 22reasoning as follows: "the sophisticated method used to display the illicit banner, i.e.
the use of the drone, constitutes an aggravating factor that must be taken into
consideration when determining the sanction, since it is extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to prevent such an intrusion. In order to discourage other supporters.fi·om
using similar methods, the fine of €1 00,000 imposed against the [FAA] by the [CEDB]
appears legitimate and proportionate, as well as sending out a strong message".

VIII. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT70.

On 30 December 2014, pursuant to Article R47 of the Code ofSpmt-related Arbitration(hereinafter the "CAS Code") and Article 62 para. 1 of the UEFA Statutes, theAppellant filed a Statement of Appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Spmt
(hereinafter the "CAS") to challenge the Appealed Decision, taken by the UEFA
Appeals Body on 2 December 2014 and notified to the Patties on 22 December 2014.

71.

On 3 February 2015, following the PAS's application to intervene in the present
arbitration, the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division notified its decision
to allow the FAS to participate as Intervening Party in accordance with Article R41 of
the CAS Code.

72.

On 5 February 2015, the CAS notified the Parties of the formation of the Panelconstituting of Prof. Massimo Coccia as chairman, Pro£ Philippe Sands QC, designatedby the Appellant, and Prof. Martin Schimke, designated by the Respondent.

73.

By letter of 9 February 2015, the CAS Court Office notified the Patties that, in
accordance with Article R44.3 of the CAS Code, the Panel ordered: (i) the Respondent
to produce and provide the CAS with audio recordings of the hearing in the underlying
UEFA procedure within three days; (ii) the Respondent to produce and provide the
CAS with the complete, official video footage, including any and all available camera
feeds, of the Match; (iii) the Appellant, within 14 days of receipt of the audio
recordings of the hearing in the underlying UEFA procedure, to transcribe all
testimonies and any other declarations rendered in that hearing on which it intended torely, encouraging the Appellant to cooperate to that end with the Intervening Party(which had been analogously ordered in the parallel arbitration CAS 2015/A/3875). The
Panel also (i) suspended the time limit for the Appellant to file its appeal brief until the14111 day after receipt of the audio recordings of the hearing in the underlying procedureand the official video footage of the Match, (ii) indicated that the Respondent's twentyday time limit for filing its answer would start to run upon receipt of the appeal brief,and (iii) indicated that the Intervening Party would have 20 days from receipt of theappeal brief to file its observations.

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 23

74.

On 13 February 2015, having received the audio recordings of the hearing in theunderlying procedure and the official video footage of the Match, the CAS lifted thesuspension of the Appellant's time limit for filing its appeal brief with immediate
effect. It also advised the Parties that, pursuant to Article R54 of the CAS Code, Mr.
Francisco A. Larios had been appointed as ad hoc clerk in the case.

75.

On 2 March 2015, the Appellant filed its appeal brief in accordance with Atiicle R51 of
the CAS Code.

76.

On 9 March 2015, the CAS Comt Office informed the Parties that a hearing would beheld on 17 April 2015 in Lausanne, Switzerland, and granted the Parties until 16 March
2015 to indicate the names of all persons who would be attending the hearing.

77.

On 16 March 2015, the Appellant informed the CAS that the following persons would
be attending the hearing on its behalf: Prof. Antonio Rigozzi and Mr. William
McAuliffe (both as counsel for the Appellant), Mr. Armand Duka (President of theFAA), and Mr. Denis Bastari (Director of International Relations of the FAA). The
Appellant further stated that the following individuals would testify: Mr. Lorik Cana
(Captain of the Albanian national team) and Mr. Giovanni De Biasi (Coach of the
Albanian national team) as factual witnesses, and Professors Sebastien Besson andAlain Macaluso as expert witnesses.

78.

On 16 March 2015, the Respondent indicated that it would be represented at the hearing
by Mr. Carlos Schneider (UEFA Disciplinary Lawyer), Dr. Emilio Garcia (UEFA's
Head of Disciplinary and Integrity) and Dr. Jan Kleiner (Counsel for UEFA).

79.

On 16 March 2015, the Intervening Party informed the CAS that the following
individuals would be attending the hearing of 17 April 2015: Mr. Zoran Lakovic(General Secretary of the FAS), Mr. Nebojsa Ivkovic (Head of Legal of the FAS), Mr.
Zoran Damjanovic (Counsel for the FAS), Dr. Marco Del Fabro (Counsel of the FAS),
Mr. Roy Levy (Counsel of the FAS) and Mrs. Maja Trifunovic (independentinterpreter). The Intervening Patty further indicated that the following individuals
would testify as witnesses:-

In person: Mr. Zoran Lakovic;-

By telephone or in person, if required: Mr. Milivoj Mirkov (Security Office of
the FAS) and Mr. Zeljko Pantie (Chief of stewarding services);-

By telephone: Mr. Stefan Mitrovic (Football player of the Serbian nationalteam), Mr. Branislav Ivanovic (Captain of the Serbian national team), Mr.
Aleksandar Boskovic (Team manager of the Serbian national team and press
officer of the FAS), and Mr. Vojislav Nedeljkovic (Public announcement
stadium speaker).

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/ N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 2480.

On 7 April 2015, following the Panel's decision to grant an extension of the original
deadline, both the Respondent and the Intervening Party filed their response
submissions.

81.

On 10 April2015, the CAS Court Office sent the Parties the Order of Procedure to besigned and returned by 14 April2015. In addition, it invited the Intervening Party to filea witness statement for Mr. lvanovic as a condition to having him testify at the hearing.

82.

On 13 April 2015, the Appellant requested to be provided by the CAS with thesubmissions made by the FAS and UEFA in the case CAS 2015/A/3875 Football
Association of Serbia v. UEFA.

83.

Also on 13 April2015, the Respondent returned its signed Order of Procedure.

84.

On 14 April 2015, the Respondent and the Intervening Party both objected to theAppellant's request to be provided with the submissions in CAS 2015/A/3875 Football
Association of Serbia v. UEFA.

85.

Also on 14 April2015, (i) the Appellant and the Intervening Party returned their signed
Order of Procedure; (ii) the Appellant renounced the calling of Professor Macaluso as
expert witness at the hearing; (iii) the Appellant informed the CAS Court Office that
Mr. Atten Hajdari, local counsel for the Appellant, also wished to attend the hearing;(iv) the Intervening Party submitted the witness statement for the factual witness, Mr.
Ivanovic; and (v) the Intervening Party renounced the calling of Mr. Mirkov, Mr.
Boskovic and Mr. Nedeljkovic.

86.

On 15 April 2015, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the Panel had
decided to dismiss the Appellant's request to be provided with the submissions in CAS
2015/A/3875 Football Association of Serbia v. UEFA, the reasons for which would be
set out in this award.

87.

On 16 April 2015, a hearing was held at the CAS headquarters m Lausanne,
Switzerland.

88.

In attendance at the hearing were:
for the Appellant: Prof. Antonio Rigozzi, Mr. William McAuliffe, Mr.
Armand Duka, Mr. Denis Bastari, Mr. Arten Hajdari, Mr. Dritan Shakohoxha(Administrator of the FAA) and Ms. Aldijana Sabanovic (Interpreter);-for the Respondent: Dr. Emilio Garcia, Dr. Jan Kleiner and Mr. Carlos
Schneider; andfor the Intervening Pmty: Dr. Marco Del Fabro, Mr. Roy Levy, Mr. Zoran
Lakovic, Mr. Nebojsa Ivkovic, Mr. Zoran Damjanovic and Mrs. Maja
Trifunovic.

Tribunal Arbitral dLt Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 25

89.

The witnesses heard in person at the hearing were Mr. Lorik Cana, Mr. Giovanni De
Biasi, and Mr. Zoran Lakovic as factual witnesses and Professor Sebastien Besson as
expert witness. Mr. Zeljko Pantie and Mr. Branislav Ivanovic both testified as factual
witnesses by video link.

90.

At the outset of the hearing, the Respondent and the Intervening Party confirmed thatthey had no objections towards the constitution and composition of the Panel. The
Appellant, on the other hand, expressed that there could be a "potential" problem withthe composition of the Panel, arguing that the Panel's decision of 15 April 2015 not togive to the Appellant and Mr. Sands QC copies of the submissions filed in the parallelcase CAS 2015/A/3875 Football Association of Serbia v. UEFA allegedly created an
imbalance within the Panel as only one fraction of the Panel - Messrs. Coccia andSchimke, who had been appointed as arbitrators also in the other case- had knowledgeof the evidence and arguments submitted in that other proceeding. As such, theAppellant reserved its right to challenge the composition of the Panel. However, after
the President of the Panel, speaking also on behalf of Mr. Schimke, offered assurancesthat the arbitrators in the present case would decide the dispute between the Parties
based exclusively on the evidence and arguments submitted in the present case, counsel
for the Appellant stated that he trusted the President's indication.

91.

Before the end of the hearing, in answering a question posed by the President of the
Panel about the possibility, under Articles 27.01 CR and 21 DR, of the Patties having ashared responsibility for the Match not being played in full, the Parties responded asfollows: (i) UEFA rejected that there could be a shared responsibility between national
associations under said rules, equating the situation to the "flipping of a coin" (i.e.,either the FAA or the FAS must be held responsible and, accordingly, either national
association must lose the Match by a forfeit of 0:3); (ii) the Intervening Party agreed
with UEFA that there could be no shared responsibility and that either the FAA or the
FAS must be held to have lost the Match by 0:3 but, on the other hand, did
acknowledge that there could perhaps be a shared responsibility between an associationand UEFA; (iii) the Appellant tended to agree that the relevant UEFA rules seem toentail an either-or situation but acknowledged that, if the Panel were to consider that theUEFA regulations contain a lacuna on this matter, Swiss law would allow the Panel tofill it by devising a reasonable solution.

92.

At the end of the hearing, the three Parties confirmed that the Panel had respected theirright to be heard.

'T'ribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 26IX.

OVERVIEW OF THE PARTIES' POSITIONS

93.

The following is a brief summary of the Patties' submissions and does not purport toinclude every contention put forth by the Parties. However, the Panel has thoroughly
considered in its discussion and deliberation all of the evidence and arguments
submitted by the Pmties, even if no specific or detailed reference has been made tothose arguments in the following outline of their positions and in the ensuing
discussion.
IX.l The Appellant: Football Association of Albania

94.

The Appellant submits that the Appealed Decision was erroneous because (i) the FAS
must be sanctioned for the racist and discriminatory behaviour of its suppmters; (ii) the
FAA is not responsible for the illicit banner carried by the drone; and (iii) the FAA is
not responsible for the Match not having been played in full.
a)

The FAS must be sanctioned for racist and discriminatmy conduct of its
supporters

95.

The Appellant argues that the Appealed Decision erred in refraining from reviewing the
FAA's request to have the FAS sanctioned under Article 14 DR for racist anddiscriminatory chants and banners (see supra at paras. 9 and 10) and for confirming the
CEDB decision, which held that said chants and banners were only political in nature
within the meaning of Article 16(e) DR.

96.

The Appellant considers that its claim is admissible because it is in fact "directly
affected' by the CEDB Serbia Decision's dismissal ofthe charges of A1ticle 14 DR.

97.

First, the Appellant argues that, as it is participating in the same group as the FAS in the2016 UEFA European Championship qualifying round, any sanction imposed on the
FAS for the racist and discriminatory chants directly affects the FAA's interest. The
Appellant points to Article 14 para. 4 and contends that the racist and discriminatory
chants could give rise to the imposition of aggravated sanctions, including the playing
of one or more matches behind closed doors, a stadium closure, the forfeiture of amatch, the deduction of points or the disqualification from the competition, the latter
three which directly affect the legal position of the FAA.

98.

Second, the Appellant contends that irrespective of any additional sanction that may be
imposed for the racist and discriminatory chants under A1ticle 14 DR, the Appellant isdirectly affected (i) by any decision which purports to determine whether the FAA has
been a "victim" of racism or other disciplinary conduct under A1ticle 14 DR; and (ii) in
its capacity as the party that brought the complaint which nltimately led way to theinitiation of Article 14 DR charges against the FAS. The Appellant is adamant that the
purpose of A1ticle 14 DR is to protect individuals that are victims of racial abuse.

'Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for Sperl
CAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

99.

page 27

Third, the Appellant assetts that "it would be counterintuitive to allow the charged
federation, club or person to escape any judicial review of their acquittal simply by the
combined effect of (i) the UEFA Appeals Body declaring an appeal by a third party
inadmissible and (ii) UEFA refi'aining fi'om appealing the acquittal. Jf the Panel wereto accept this proposition, then UEFA would be allowed to 'bwy' any complaint ofviolation ofArticle 14 DR."

100. Finally, the Appellant maintains that since the UEFA Appeals Body decided to hear the
FAA's appeals against the CEDB Albania and CEDB Serbia Decisions jointly, it is notpossible to separate the charges based on Article 14 DR from the rest of the case. In thisrespect the Appellant states that "from a procedural point of view ... the consolidation ofboth appeals in a single proceedings (and decision) means that, in view of CAS' denovo power of review, the FAA has the right to submit all limbs of the decision underappeal to the Panel's large de novo scope of review, including all factual and legal
elements of all charges against FAS''.
10 I. At the hearing, the Appellant expressed its disaccord with the Respondent andIntervening Party's suggestion that the Appellant should have intervened in CAS
2015/A/3875 Football Association of Serbia v. UEFA to challenge the CEDB Serbia
Decision's dismissal of the Article 14 DR charges. Such a route, in its opinion, would
have been inappropriate considering that an intervening patty may only support theposition of one of the parties in a dispute but cannot bring its own prayers for relief.
I 02. The Appellant then asserts that the CEDB erred in considering the chants and banners
as being only political in nature. On this point, the Appellant argues:
the chants of "kill the Albanians" and "kill and slaughter them [the Albanians]
until none are left" clearly "insult the human dignity of a person or group of
persons" within the meaning of Atticle 14 DR. The Appellant stresses that "it isand should be self-evident that an explicit incitation to murder andextermination of an ethnic group constitutes and insult to human dignity".
- The chant and banners of "Kosovo is Serbia" is also racist and discriminatory
within the meaning of Article 14 DR, once contextualized. The Appellant
makes reference to the fact that in the relatively recent Balkan wars Serbianforces were sent to ethnically "cleanse" Kosovo of ethnic Albanians. In theAppellant's view "any person of Albanian ethnicity is insulted in his or her
human dignity by such reference to a dark episode of European histmy during
which a significant geographical area was violently 'cleansed' of its Albanian
population." The Appellant adds that, in any case, any doubt as to whether thischant was racist in nature is eliminated when one considers that the same
individuals who chanted it were also chanting for the Albanians to be killed andexterminated.

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 20 15/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 28- The same considerations apply to the posters of Vojislav Seslj and Veljko
Radenovic, political and military figures who are considered to have been
involved in the so-called ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo.
- The burning of the NATO flag, in the same context, "is equally inflammatmy
toward the Albanian people as a NATO bombing campaign was needed to stopthe ethnic cleansing .... Under these circumstances, burning the NATO flag
constitutes an additional provocation that objectively insults the human dignityof any ethnic Albanian."
I 03. The Appellant considers it to be evident that the chants calling for killing andexterminating the Albanians are racist and discriminatory in nature and fall squarely
within Article 14 DR. As for the other chants and banners mentioned above, theAppellant also considers them as independent breaches of Article 14 DR, and at thevery minimum, as exacerbating the other incidents that would amount to a breach of
Atticle 14 DR, meaning that they should be taken into account in determining theapplicable sanction.
I 04. As for the applicable sanction, the Appellant refers to Article 14 para. 4 DR where it
stipulates that if the circumstances of the case require it, the disciplinary body may
impose additional measures such as the playing of one or more matches behind closed
doors, a stadium closure, the forfeiting of a match, the deduction of points or thedisqualification from the competition. The Appellant indicates that it leaves to the Panelthe determination of what sanction is appropriate in light of the circumstances.
However, in light of the fact that the present arbitration is governed by Atticle 176 etseq. of the Swiss Private International Law Act (hereinafter the "PILA"), the Appellant
explicitly requests the Panel to sanction the PAS with a disqualification from thecompetition, which, as the highest sanction and in view of Article 190(2)(c) PILA,
gives the Panel full discretion to determine the appropriate sanction. That said, theAppellant maintains that, in the event the Respondent is not sanctioned with a match
forfeiture for being responsible under Article 21 DR for the Match not being played infull, the minimum sanction that should be imposed under Article 14 para. 4 DR should
be a match forfeiture.
105. It should be noted that at the hearing the Appellant pointed out, with the assistance of
its intetpreter, that on the video footage areas of the Match in which the Serbian
supporters chanted "Kill, Kill Shiptar" (Shiptar being a racial slur for Albanian) and"Kill and slaughter the Albanians until there are none left". The Intervening Party's
interpreter did not dispute this translation.
106. In support of its position on this issue, the Appellant submitted an expert repmt written
by Prof. Sebastien Besson. It also called Prof. Besson as an expert witness at the CAS
hearing of 17 April 2015. Prof. Besson submitted, inter alia, that the FAA is directlyTribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SporLCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 29

affected by the decision to release the FAS from Article 14 DR charges of racism andthus can appeal that decision because the FAA and its players, as the addressees of theracist and discriminatory chants, were the victims of said chants. This conclusion, hedeclared, is further reinforced by the fact that one of the sanctions that the CAS could
apply for a breach of Article 14 DR is the forfeiture of the Match, which would clearlyaffect the FAA in a direct way, not only in its legal position (in particular as the victim)
but also in its spotting and financial position. Mr. Besson submitted that, in any case,any issue concerning the Appellant's entitlement to appeal is now moot because theAppellant indisputably has the right to appeal the Appealed Decision before the CAS
and the CAS has the power to review all factual and legal issues addressed therein,
including the Article 14 DR charges against the FAS. Finally, Mr. Besson submits thatthe chants "Kill, Kill, the Albanians" and "Kill them all until none are l~ft" cannot beclassified as merely political and it would be incompatible with public policy within themeaning of Article l90(2)(e) PILAto classify them as such.
107. The Appellant also submitted an expett repott written by Prof. Alain Macaluso, whoconcluded on this issue that the chants and banners fulfilled the objective criteria of theoffense of racial discrimination as referred to and penalized in atticle 26]bi'ofthe Swiss
Penal Code (CP) and that the fact that said chants are allegedly politically motivateddoes not constitute an exculpatory factor.
b) The FAA is not responsible for the drone and illicit banner

I 08. The Appellant claims that the approach taken by the UEFA Appeals Body to find that itwas conformably satisfied that the drone carrying the illicit banner was controlled by an
Albanian supporter(s) is misconceived as:(i) there is no evidence whatsoever to suppott that finding. The Appellant claims it
is entirely possible the drone could have been controlled by an individual
without any link to the Appellant (for instance, Serbian hooligans attempting tocreate a situation of violence); and(ii) the UEFA regulations do not contain any presumption allowing for theidentification of the offender simply based on the nature of the offense.
109. The Appellant believes that the three decisions concerning the notion of a "supporter"
on which the UEFA Appeals Body relies are distinguishable and irrelevant:- In CAS 2007/Ail217, the Panel determined that "the behavior of individuals
and their location in the stadium and its vicinity are important criteria for
determining which team or club they support"; in the present case, however,there were no Albanian supporters in the stadium or anywhere in the vicinity ofthe stadium and so the CAS precedent is irrelevant.

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 30- In CAS 2013/A/3139 there was no doubt that the flares that were parachuted
into a match being played behind closed doors from outside the stadium weresent by the home supporters (accepted by the club in question and the official
present at that match); in the present case, it is unclear and not established who
was the operator of the drone.
- CAS 2014/A/3324 and 3369 merely restates the principle of strict liability forsupporters in a situation where the supporters are physically present in thestadium and were clearly identifiable as being home supporters.
II 0. The Appellant concludes: "The principle of strict liability and the rule that supporters
must be attributed to a team according to their behaviour and location cannot operate
to attribute the operation of the drone to the FAA in a situation ~where no supporter,
whose actions and location could have been analysed, was ever identified. Even if there
was such a presumption in the regulations, such a presumption could not operate in acase where no Albanian fan was in the stadium, the police searched the Albaniandelegation for the drone's operating device and found nothing, and there is no evidence
that Albanian fans were in the vicinity of the stadium. Finally, attributing the operationof the drone to Albanian supporters under circumstances "would be at odds with Swisslaw as there is no minimum connection between the FAA and the unknown individuals
who operated the drone".
Ill. At the hearing, the Appellant confirmed that, in its opinion, strict liability cannot extend
to an unknown individual, given that in such a situation there is a missing link between
the banner and the individual. This gap, according to the Appellant, cannot be filled by
yet another presumption. The Appellant objected to the Intervening Party's claim that
there was sufficient evidence to establish that one Ismael Morinaj operated the drone. In
its view, the social media posts submitted by the Intervening Party are insufficient toestablish a meaningful link between Mr. Morinaj and the FAA.
112. Next, the Appellant maintains that, in the event the Panel holds it responsible for theillicit banner carried by the drone, the EUR I 00,000 fine that UEFA imposed must be
considered as evidently and grossly dispropotiionate and should therefore be reduced
accordingly.
113. In suppoti, the Appellant argues that the fact the illicit banner was displayed through a"sophisticated method' (i.e. the drone) and that the use of such method makes it"difficult if not impossible, to prevent" the offense cannot be considered an aggravating
factor.
114. Additionally, the Appellant believes it is "intrinsically wrong to use disciplinary
proceedings to make an example out of the FAA's punishment, in particular since there
is no evidence that the drone was actually operated by an Albanian fan ... a sanction

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport

Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 31

imposed ... to discourage other supporters from using similar methods ... is clearly
disproportionate".
115. As to proportionality, the Appellant argues that the fine is excessive. The Appellant
compares the EUR I 00,000 fine with the fines UEFA imposed in the 2013/2014 UEFAChampions League match between Arsenal and Bayern Munich in March 2014- EUR
I 0,000 for a banner reading "Say no to racism say yes to Kosovo" - and in the
2012/2013 UEFA Champions League match between Valletta FC and FK Pmtizan on
17 July 2012 - EUR 7,500 for four Serbian supporters climbing the stadium walls,
invading the stadium and showing a political banner, causing an interruption of thematch for two minutes.
116. Prof. Besson, the expert witness called by the Appellant, submitted on this issue that (i)the concept of "supporter" requires a minimum connection between the association andthe person having committed the offense; (ii) some presumptions are acceptable but
must be based on reasonable and objective criteria (for instance, individuals seated in adesignated area of the stadium can be deemed to be a supporter of a patticular team)and are rebuttable; and (iii) failing such a minimum connection means that theindividual cannot be characterized as a "supporter" for the purposes of disciplinary
sanctions against the association. Prof. Besson concludes that the drone and the banner
cannot be attributed to the Appellant under Article 8 and 16 para. I DR since, in theabsence of any other elements, the mere fact that a banner is depicting a sign that
supports one team is manifestly not sufficient to presume that the banner has been madeby a "supporter" of that team. Holding otherwise would result in an arbitrary decisionand dangerous precedent as "it would become an easy game to harm any team byoperating a drone fi·om a distance with symbols or signs supporting that same team".
c) The FAA is not responsible for the Match not being played in full

117. The Appellant maintains that, in the event that the Panel does not impose the forfeitureof the Match on the FAS based on Article 14 DR, the FAS should be considered
responsible for the Match not being played in full under Article 27 CR, and, thus, tohave lost the Match 0:3 pursuant to Article 21 DR. According to the Appellant, the
FAA is not responsible for the Match not being played in full because (i) the Albanianside was not told that it was safe to re-enter the field and did not receive a clear orderthat they had to resume the Match; (ii) the word "responsible" cannot be interpreted insuch an over-simplistic manner; (iii) even if under the Panel's interpretation of Article
21 DR the FAA was "responsible" for the Match not being played in full, its refusal tore-enter the field is justifiable based on the doctrine of etat de micessite; and (iv) the
FAA was not at fault.
118. As to the first point, the Appellant submits that:Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 32- there is no evidence that the Albanian's side safety was guaranteed and that,
accordingly, their refusal to re-enter the field was no longer justified. In supportof this contention, the Appellant specifically points to the facts that (i) none of
the contemporaneous official repmts indicate that safety was restored; (ii)
nobody testified at the UEFA Appeals Body hearing of 2 December 2014 that
the Albanian players were told safety was restored. To the Appellant, what
actually happened is that "the Match Referee, who was asked by UEFA MatchControl Centre to tty to continue the Match 'once the security was ensured',
asked the captains whether they would agree to play on 'once the security issafe to take them back out again' and was quite happy to abandon the gameonce he was informed by the Albanian side that they were notprepared toresume the Match". The Appellant assetts that (i) "the UEFA Match centre did
not ask to continue the match without ensuring that the safety had been
restored. Indeed the order was to "t1y" to play "once" it is safe" and (ii) "theUEFA representatives did not tell the Albanian players that it was safe to reenter the pitch" and the Match Referee did not order them to do so. The
Appellant further asserts: "While it is easy, now, to explain this absence of any
guarantee regarding the security by arguing that the Albanian players said thatthey would play under no circumstance, the fact remains that nobody fromUEFA 's side positively took the responsibility to guarantee to the Albanian
players that, despite the fact that they had just been savagely assaulted, it wassure for them to re-enter the pitch". The Appellant concludes that, as such, theAlbanian side, irrespective of whether they cared about the possibility of losing
the Match 3:0, cannot be considered responsible for the Match not being playedin full. To hold the FAA responsible would be to punish it "for having assumed
the responsibility of making the only responsible decision that should have beentaken by UEFA in the first place";- no real assessment of the security situation was carried out and that common
sense dictates that there was no way UEFA could have guaranteed the safety of
the Albanian side;- security was not restored;- there is a contradiction as to whose responsibility it was for deciding whether
the Match should restart; and- "the Match Referee testified that if he had been the person assaulted with achair by a Serbian hooligan (instead of the Albanian player Bekim Balaj), hewould have abandoned the Match. [Thus, u]nless the Panel is prepared toaccept that the physical integrity of a(n Albanian) player is worth less than theone of a UEFA official, the [Appealed Decision] can only be set aside".

119. The Appellant added at the hearing that the Montenegro v. Russia 2016 UEFA
European Championship qualifiers match of27 March 2015 was not comparable to thepresent case, as in that case no security stewards attacked any players in that match.
Fmther, the Appellant added that the Respondent's contention that the Albanian sideusurped the Match Referee's authority is not legally accurate. It is the Match Referee'sTribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 33

prerogative to abandon the Match if he considers the conditions for doing so are
fulfilled. In the present case, the Match Referee considered that such conditions were
fulfilled and now, in light of the applicable UEFA regulations, the consequences ofsuch abandonment must be determined.
120. On the second point, the Appellant submits that the Appealed Decision adopted anover-simplistic interpretation of the word "responsible", by focusing only on the final
link of a long chain of events, i.e. the Albanian side's alleged refusal to play, without
considering the full circumstances in which the alleged refusal occurred. In addition, theAppellant submits that interpreting the word "responsible" without making any
reference to actual responsibility of"fault" is inconsistent with the usual meaning of theword. The Appellant adds "Strict liability and responsibility for the behavior of a third
party are not excluded but must be explicitly provided for by the applicable regulation.
The [Appealed Decision] would have had a basis only if the relevant regulations would
ha[ve] explicitly provided that the team which, for whatever reasons, refitses to play is
responsible for the match not having being played in fit!!. This is not what the UEFA[DR] say. The UEFA Rules requires the CEDE to 'tak[e] a decision in the matter'depending on which side is 'responsible'". The Appellant contends that the question of
responsibility cannot be answered by simply looking at the final link in the chain of
events, since the UEFA rules require the disciplinary body to assess the totality of thecircumstances and decide who is responsible for the match not being played in full.
121. According to the Appellant, the reason for the Albanian players' refusal to play was that"they were the victim of deliberate attacks by many Serbian hooligans and security
officials". As such, the Appellant maintains that the FAS must bear responsibility under
Atticle 21 DR for the Match not being played in full and, accordingly, it should be
deemed to have lost the Match 3:0. The Appellant believes that to hold otherwise would"de facto reward the authors of the assault and punish even fitrther the victims". To theAppellant, it is irrelevant whether or not the appearance of the drone "triggered' thebehaviour of the Serbian suppotters and security officials, as it cannot justify such
behaviour, which was the decisive element in the Match not being played in full, noreliminate the FAS' responsibility for it. The Appellant is adamant that "the assault of
the Albanian players is certainly the decisive element in the chain of events. If one wereto reason by analogy with the concepts of fault and causality under Swiss civil
responsibility, the assault would be a factor overriding any other source of
responsibility (causalite depassante)".
122. On the third point, the Appellant maintains that even if the FAA was "responsible" forthe Match not having been played in full, that the Albanian side's decision to notresume the Match for safety reasons would be justified under the Swiss criminal law
doctrine of etat de necessite, or "state of necessity", applicable by analogy.

Tribunal Arbitral du Sporl
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 34

123. On the final point, the Appellant contends that, in the event that the FAA is considered
responsible for the Match not being played in full, and if the doctrine of eta! denecessite is held inapplicable, the Albanian players did not commit any fault.
124. At the hearing, the Appellant insisted on the importance of context. In its view, it was
entirely legitimate for the Albanian players not to continue the Match in circumstancesin which they (i) played in a hostile stadium; (ii) were hit by hooligans which security
did nothing to stop; and (iii) were attacked by security stewards, being persons who
were supposedly there to protect them.
125. In support of its position on the abandonment of the Match, the Appellant called Mr.
Lorik Cana and Mr. De Biasi, the captain and coach of the Albanian national team,respectively.
126. Mr. Cana testified, inter alia, that:i)the Match Referee did not give a clear order to restart the Match, but only
expressed an intention was to try and finish the first half of the Match once
security was ensured;ii)

neither the Match Referee nor the UEFA delegate (Mr. Been) indicated to
Mr. Cana that steps had been taken to ensure the safety of the players;iii)

two meetings were held in the dressing rooms between the Match Referee
and the captains of both national teams;iv)

in the first meeting, he told the Match Referee that his team was absolutely
not in the condition to restart the Match, as the players were injured andscared for their safety, with football being the last thing on their minds,
following which the Match Referee asked whether this was his final
decision;v)

in the second meeting, after returning to his team's locker room to check
whether his team was in agreement with the position he had expressed to
the Match Referee, he confirmed to the Match Referee that his team was
unable to continue playing that Match;vi)

the Match Referee did not attempt to persuade him to continue the Match;vii)

after the second meeting, Mr. Been came with a typed declaration andrequested that he sign it. Mr. Cana did not solicit the declaration from Mr.
Been;

viii)

after reading the declaration, he considered it appropriate to add somelanguage in handwriting prior to signing it (see supra at para. 30);ix)

a security steward attacked him during the field invasion;x)

he does not have any social media accounts; the tweets and Instragam posts
submitted by the Intervening Party that purport to emanate from him arefrom a person claiming to be Lorik Cana;Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 35xi)

at the Match it was the first time that he had heard the chant "Kill, Kill the
Albanians"; andxii)

the chants did not make him fear for his life; since he had pmtaken as aprofessional football player in more than 500 matches, he had grownaccustomed to hearing insulting chants from opposing teams' supporters; it
was the attacks by the Serbian supporters that made him fear for his life.

127. The coach of the FAA national team, Mr. De Biasi, testified, inter alia, that:i)a security steward punched Mr. Cana;ii)

never before in his long career in football had he witnessed a security
steward attack a player or so frightful a situation as the one caused by themassive field invasion by local fans;iii)

while it may have been physically possible for the Albanian side tocontinue playing the Match with the injuries sustained, the mental impact of
the incidents that occurred after the 42nd minute (i.e. the fear) was toodamaging on the Albanian side for it to continue the Match; moreover, thefear placed them at a disadvantage from a competitive point of view, i.e. theteams would no longer be playing under equal conditions if the Match were
to continue;iv)

he understood the players' decision and if they had not taken it, he would
have taken it for them;v)

he was not involved in the players' decision;vi)

nobody told him that his team had been ordered to continue the Match orthat safety had been ensured;vii)

he was scared and particularly fearful of the Serbian suppmters evenbreaking into the coaches' locker room.

128. In light of the foregoing, the Appellant requests in its prayers for relief that the CAS
issue an arbitral award:"1. Setting aside the Decision under Appeal.
II. Ordering that the Decision under Appeal is amended, particularly so as tofind the Football Association of Serbia to have violated Article 27 of theCompetition Regulations and Article 14 and 21 DR.
III. Imposing to the Football Association of Serbia the sanction it deems
appropriate under Article 14 DR, including disqualification form [sic] thecompetition.
IV. Ordering that "the Football Association of Serbia is deemed to have lost the
Match 0:3"
V. Declaring that no sanction be imposed on the Football Association of
Albania in connection ~with the illicit banner or, alternatively, ordering that theTribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 36

sanctions imposed in the Decision issued by the CEBD are modified to replace
it with a considerably reduced sanction.
Vl Condemning UEFA and/or Football Association of Serbia to pay all thearbitration costs; andVII Ordering UEFA and/or Football Association of Serbia to pay a substantial
contribution towards the Appellant's arbitration related costs".

IX.2 The Respondent: UEFAa) The Appellant has no standing to appeal the sanctions imposed on the FAS

129. The Respondent maintains that the Appellant does not have standing to appeal the
sanction imposed on the FAS, as it is not directly affected by that part of the Appealed
Decision. In support of this assettion, the Respondent points to (i) Atticle 62 para. 2 of
the UEFA Statutes (see supra at para. 57), which, according to the Respondent, is very
restrictive and only extends the right of appeal to the direct addressee of a measure; and(ii) CAS jurisprudence, namely CAS 2008/A/1583 and 1584, which makes a distinction
between parties that are "directly affected'' by a decision - and thus have standing toappeal to the CAS- and parties that are only "indirectly affected''- and thus lack suchstanding. The Respondent argues that the Appellant has no standing to bring theproceedings given that the Appellant is neither the direct addressee of the Appealed
Decision, nor is it directly affected by the Appealed Decision. According to the
Respondent, the Appellant is only indirectly affected by said decision as a competitor of
the FAS. At the hearing, the Respondent elaborated on this argument, stating that as far
as the application of Article 14 DR is concerned, it is unaware of any cases before
UEFA in which the disciplinary body went directly to Atticle 14 para. 4 DR in order toapply harsher sanctions. Instead, UEFA disciplinary bodies generally stick with theprogression of sanctions for recidivism set forth in Article 14 para. 3 DR.
130. The Respondent further maintains that, in the event that the Panel accepts theAppellant's appeal against the sanction imposed on the FAS, the fine for the drone of
EUR I 00,000 cannot be considered as evidently and grossly disproportionate, and may
even be too lenient. The Respondent stresses that apart from a warning and reprimand,a fine is the lightest sanction among the list of sanctions enumerated by Article 6 DR.
Furthermore, in its view the level of the fine is appropriate given: (i) the seriousness of
introducing a drone inside the stadium full of spectators (i.e. the object carried by thedrone could have been of a far more dangerous nature, such as an explosive); and (ii)the highly political and offensive nature of the banner. The Respondent objects to thecases referred to by the Appellant where UEFA imposed a lower ban for the display ofillicit banners because "[f]irst, both quoted cases refer to UEFA club competitions inwhich national pride is less sensitive ... [second] none of the clubs involved, not evenTribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 37

indirectly, represented two associations sharing a political and violent background as
the ones in the case at hand[, t]hird, none of these cases involved the combination of apseudo terrorist attack aimed to offend the attendees and the opponent of the match[,flourth, none of these cases included a demonstration ofpolitical engagement directlyagainst the nation represented by the opponent", and fifth, the case in connection with
the UEFA Champions League match between Valletta FC and FK Partizan was noteven dealt with by the UEFA disciplinary bodies under the scope of an illicit banner
infringement, but rather under crowd disturbances. The Respondent adds that the fine of
EUR 100,000 only amounts to 1-2 percent of the benefits (from revenues linked to thecentralized television rights) that the FAA receives for its participation in the 2016
European Championships qualifying round alone.
b) The Appellant is responsible for the drone and illicit banner131. The Respondent maintains that the Appellant must be held responsible for the drone
and the illicit banner. The Respondent points out that the applicable standard of proof is"comfortable satisfaction", meaning that the Panel must determine whether it iscomfortably satisfied that the drone was operated by an Albanian supporter. The
Respondent insists that, in making such assessment, the Panel must bear in mind thatthe notion of supporter is an open concept that must be assessed from the perspective ofa reasonable and objective observer. The Respondent concludes that in the present case"a reasonable and objective observer can only conclude that the drone ... [with] thebanner was controlled by one or several Albanian supporters" based on the following:(i) the content on the banner, particularly the map of "Greater Albania" and the
Albanian nationalist symbols (i.e. the date of 28 November 1912 and the images ofpolitical leaders Ismail Qemali and Isa Boletini); (ii) the reaction of Albanian players
and officials who tried to reclaim and keep the banner from the Serbian players; and(iii) the subsequent appearance of the same banner in other matches and events, as wellas in t-shirts, cups and video games.
c) The Appellant is responsible for the Match not being played in full132. The Respondent's version of the facts is as follows. At the Crisis Meeting it was
decided that the remainder of the first half should be played once security was restored.
The Match Referee then spoke with the captains and managers of both teams and while
he was informing them that play must be resumed the Albanian captain, Mr. Cana,
without inquiring as to whether or not it was safe to continue the Match, informed theUEFA officials that his team was unwilling to do so, as they feared for their physicaland mental well-being, i.e. the Albanian national team categorically refused to play. In
suppmt of this contention, the Respondent repeatedly pointed to the transcript of theTribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 38

UEFA Hearing, particularly the Match Referee's statement that " ... both teams weretold they must go out and continue the game once we ensured the safety."133. The Respondent considers the Albanian side's alleged refusal to play to be a violationof Articles 27 CR and 21 DR and, with the Appellant allegedly having taking into its
own hands a decision that only the Match Referee had the power to make, a usurpationof the referee's power under the Laws of the Game. To the Respondent, holding
othetwise would send the wrong message to the world of football and would result in
UEF A being incapable of organizing its own matches and competitions.
134. The Respondent is of the opinion that, as occurred in the Montenegro v. Russia 2016
UEFA European Championship qualifiers match of 27 March 2015, the Appellant
should have continued the Match and that the alleged categorical refusal to play left the
Match Referee with no choice but to abandon the Match. The Respondent adds that thisalleged categorical refusal to play cannot be justified by the tragic incidents thatpreceded it nor by any supposed security concerns.
135. The Respondent concludes from this that the Appellant must be held responsible for the
Match being abandoned under Article 21 DR and must accordingly be awarded with aforfeiture of0:3 in the Match, as the UEFA Appeals Body and CEDB correctly held.
136. With respect to Article 21 DR, the Respondent insists that the meaning of that article isstraightforward: "If the fact that a match cannot be played in fitll can be attributed toactions, omissions, or the behavior of one specific party, this party must be sanctioned.
The question is entirely objective: Can the cancellation of a match be directly, andobjectively, linked to the behaviour of one party? If so, this is the "responsible" party,
and this party shall sziffer the regulatmy consequences ... Article 21 DR only intend~ toallocate responsibility in an objective manner, regardless of the subjective element of
Jault"'. At the hearing, the Respondent compared the application of Article 21 DR to
the flipping of a coin - if the FAA is not responsible, then the PAS must automaticallybe so, and there cannot be a shared responsibility between them.
137. In light of the foregoing, the Respondent requests in its prayers for relief that the CAS
issue an award:"- Declaring inadmissible and/or unfounded the appeal of the Football
Association of Albania insofar as the Appellant requests a specific sanction to
be imposed on the Football Association of Serbia.
- In any case, rejecting the reliefs sought by Appellant and confirming the
Appealed Decision.
- Charging all costs and expenses of these proceedings to Appellant;- Granting substantial contribution to Respondent for the legal fees incurred."Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 39

IX.3 The Intervening Party: Football Association of Serbiaa) The Appellant has no standing to appeal the sanctions imposed on the FAS

138. The Intervening Party argues that the Appellant's request to impose a sanction on the
FAS is not admissible as the FAA is not directly affected by the decision against the
FAS for the following reasons:- where a third patty is only affected because it is a competitor of the addresseeof the decision taken by the association, that party is not "directly affected' as
such effects are only indirect consequences of the decision; otherwise, all theother national teams that are in the same group with the Albanian and Serbiannational teams would be able to appeal against sanctions imposed or not
imposed on the FAS.
- the FAA is not directly affected merely due to its status as an alleged victim ofracism and other discriminatory conduct under Atticle 14 DR; that would only
be the case if the disciplinary regulations provided for a specific right to appeal
for the victim.
139. Futthennore, the Intervening Party submits that the fact that the UEFA Appeals Body
decided to hear the cases against the FAS and FAA together "for practical procedural
reasons" does not give rise to standing to appeal for the FAA. The Intervening Party
adds that CAS' "de novo power of revietl'" also does not grant this right of appeal to theAppellant because the "Panel's power to review is restricted by the subject of the rightof appeal in general and the scope to which extend the imposed sanctions (against anFA) is challenged'. The Intervening Patty points out that UEFA initiated two separate
disciplinary proceedings- one against the Appellant and the other against the FAS. The
punishment for the illicit chants were dealt with only in the CEDB Serbia Decision andhave not been challenged by UEFA or the Appellant (as an intervening patty) inproceeding CAS 2015/A/3875 Football Association of Serbia v. UEFA. The
Intervening Party is adamant that any request for additional punishment on the FAS had
to be made in that CAS proceeding, but that the Appellant failed to intervene in said
proceedings to make such a request. The Intervening Party concludes that threeconclusions can thus be drawn "(i) the [FAA] has no standing to appeal in theproceeding UEFA vs. Serbian FA (CAS 2015/A/3875), (ii) the Albanian has no standing
to appeal in the proceeding UEFA vs. Albanian FA (CAS 2015/A/3874) with respect tosanctions concerning the Serbian FA, and (iii) the Panel has no right to impose
additional sanctions on the Serbian FA in the proceeding UEFA vs. Albanian FA (CAS2015/A/3874)."140. In the Intervening Party's observations it maintained that, in the event that the Panelholds that the Appellant's request to sanction the FAS is admissible, then the FAS did
not violate Article 14 DR. According to the its written submission, no racist orTribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 40

discriminatory chants, including "Kill the Albanian" (in Serbian: "Ubi ubi Shiptara") or"Kill slaughter the Albanians until they are exterminated'', were sung inside thestadium during the Match. However, at the hearing, the Appellant showed the video
footage of the Match and identified the aforementioned chants. The Intervening Party
did not challenge their occurrence, and its interpreter did not challenge the Appellant's
interpreter's translation of the chants.
141. With regards to the "Kosovo is Serbia" chants and banners, in its observations theIntervening Party alleges that they are not racist or illicit because Kosovo is still part of
the Republic of Serbia, as is enshrined in the Serbian Constitution. As to chantscontaining the word "Shiptar", the Intervening Party alleges that they are notdiscriminatory because that word does not have a discriminatory connotation; it issimply the ancient term, originating in the 171h century, for Albanians. To the Appellant,"what is clear ... is that taking into account the history of the Balkan conflict and thelong-lasting hatred between these two nations, such misconducts of the Serbian fans areof a political and not of a racist or discriminat01y nature".
142. Finally, the Intervening Party submits that (i) the Appellant's requested sanction ofdisqualification from the competition or forfeiting of the Match would not comply with
Atticle 14 para. 2 DR; and (ii) it cannot be punished twice for the same incident. In its
view, sanctioning it under Article 16 para. 2(e) DR and again under Article 14 DR for
the same chants would constitute a violation of the fundamental principle of "ne bis inidem" and thus public order (article 190(2)(e) PILA).
b) The Appellant is responsible for the drone and illicit banner143. The Intervening Party argues that the operator of the drone has been identified as an
Albanian national who lives in Italy. In support, the Intervening Party submits theFacebook account of Mr. Ismail Morinaj and a twitter message of "@Albanian soccer"
which reads "Ismail Marina the man who .flew the drone during the Serbia-Albania
game. A hero & patriot to Albanians. Respect!!!", together with a picture of thisindividual with the Albanian flag. Thus, in its view, the argument put fotth by theAppellant that there is no evidence showing that an Albanian supporter operated thedrone is without foundation.
144. Moreover, the Intervening Party considers to be nonsensical the Appellant's conspiracy
theory (i.e. that it is not inconceivable a Serbian supporter carried out the stunt to createa situation of violence). In this respect, the Intervening Party points out that the Serbian
supporters had no motive in carrying out such a stunt, especially since it carried with ita high risk of backfiring, i.e. of becoming detrimental to the Serbian national team.
According to the Intervening Party, nobody could foresee what the reactions of such aTribunal Arbitral du Sporl
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 41stunt would be or that it would result in a wm for the Serbian national team byforfeiture.
145. In any case, the Intervening Patty stresses that the meaning of the term "supporter"
adopted by the CAS is based on the reasonable and objective observer. Under thisapproach, one could only conclude that the drone was operated by an Albaniansuppmter because the banner is closely connected to Albania and the use of the drone
was the only possible means for an Albanian supporter to transmit a message fromoutside the stadium. The Intervening Party rejects Mr. Besson's expert repmt,
indicating that it fails to mention CAS jurisprudence on the notion of supporter and,moreover, to cite any case law in support for his opinion that there must be a minimum
connection between the FAA and the operator of the drone failing which a person
cannot be characterized as a supporter for purposes of a disciplinary sanction against an
association or club.

c) The FAA is responsible for the Match not being played in full
146. The Intervening Party asserts that the FAA is responsible for the Match not being
played in full. The Intervening Party contends that during the Crisis Meeting, after
having consulted with all the relevant persons, and after having assessed the situationfrom a safety and security perspective, the Match Referee decided that it was safe tocontinue the Match. According to the Intervening Party, the Match Referee thendemanded both teams to resume the Match. In suppo1t, the Intervening Party refers to
the Match Referee's testimony, in particular where he said " ... both teams were told
they must go out and continue the game once we ensured the safety ....". The
Intervening Party stresses that notwithstanding this demand, the Albanian sidecategorically refused to play, i.e. the Albanian players were clear that they would notcontinue the Match under any circumstances and did not care about the points or
winning or losing. The Intervening Party concludes that, due to said refusal, theAlbanian side must be held responsible for the Match not being played in full.
147. On the other hand, the Intervening Party maintains that it cannot be held responsible for
the Match not being played in full, as it did everything in its power to make sure that
the Match could be continued, including bringing 400 riot police and 210 additional
stewards to control the situation and restore order. According to the Intervening Pmty,
the FAS even offered to empty the stadium, pattially or fully, if that were necessary tocontinue the Match.
148. The Intervening Party adds that the decisions of the Match Referee to restart the Matchand to abandon the Match due to the Albanian's refusal to play are field of playdecisions under Article Law 5 LG. According to the Intervening Party, such decisions

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 42are final and binding and not subject to any challenge or appeal unless it can be proventhat the decision was taken arbitrarily or in bad faith, which is not the case here.
d) Other comments

149. The Intervening Party further submits:
There was no lack of clarity about the safety responsibility and an assessmentof the security situation was taken. The decision on whether or not it was safe
to continue the game was taken by the Match Referee and the UEFA Match
Delegate. Mr. Vincent Egbers assessed the security situation personally and inclose cooperation with the FAS Security Officer, who then advised Mr. Harry
Been about the security situation. It was Mr. Egbers professional opinion that
the Match could be restarted.
Within a few minutes of the events that occurred in the 42nd minute of the
Match, riot police entered the stands and restored order in the stadium.
After the Crisis Meeting the stadium public address system announced that the
Match would be continued and that if there was one more incident that the
Match would be abandoned definitively.
The injuries were not the reason for the Albanian side's refusal to play, as is
now alleged by the Appellant. Rather, the reason for such refusal was that theplayers were "physically and mentally affected by the experience" (citing Mr.
Atkinson testimony in the UEFA Appeals Body proceeding) and (erroneously)
under the belief that it was not safe to continue the Match. The Intervening
Patty alleges that the handwritten part of the declaration Mr. Can a signed after
the Match (i.e. "the physical injuries of many of my players don't allow us tokeep playing and we were even attacked by the securities of the stadium") is
not reliable, as it was added at a later stage, meaning that he must have sought
advice from a third party about what to write.

"The alleged injuries of the Albanian players which they allegedly sufferedduring the on-pitch brawl are no reason to re.filse to continue the match as (i)this was not the reason provided to the referee, (ii) no one fi'Oin the Albanianteam informed any UEFA official that one or more of their players were sobadly injured that they [could not] continue to play, (iii) no one asked any of
the UEFA officials for medical assistance, and (iv) all the players played fortheir clubs just afew days after the match in question took place ... "While the incidents that occurred after the 42nd minute of the Match are"intolerable" ones, they were all "a direct consequence of the massive
provocation to the Serbian national pride associated with the statement of the

'Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 43

fascist banner which was attached to the drone, and the attach of the Serbian
player Mitrovic by two Albanian players" and would not have occurred but forsuch provocation. In support of its contention, the Appellant submits that even
the UEFA Ethics and Disciplinary Inspector, who represented UEFA before
the UEFA Appeals Body, stated in his reply to the FAA's Appeal of 24
November 2014 that "In the case at hand, not only was a banner of a politicalnature (absolutely unrelated to football) displayed by the [Albanian]supporters, but its display was the catalyst of all the intolerable incidents that
followed, including: a. The invasion of the field by Serbian fans in attendance.
b. The on-field brawl between players and supporters. c. The interruption of
the Match. d. The Match eventually being abandoned by the appellant's
re.fi1sal to continue to play."
Despite there being 210 police officers and 109 stewards around the field, 15
Serbian fans succeeded in invading the field and some of them were able to hit
Albanian players. Notwithstanding these facts, it cannot be concluded that the
security was insufficient as the security forces in and around the stadium werethe largest in the history of the FAS, reaching 4,000 police officers (of which
1,000 were riot police) and 947 security stewards). Security cannot be 100
percent effective and if this were to be UEFA's goal then all matches would
have to be played behind closed doors.
Under Article 40 para. 3 of the UEFA Safety and Security Regulations (2006)
the FAS is required to leave a way for the spectators to escape the playing
field in case of an emergency, which, in the event that there are no adequatemeans to evacuate backwards or sideways, means that some gates to access thefield must be left open as emergency routes.
No security steward punched Mr. Cana. The security steward accused of doing
so was actually pushing Mr. Cana aside in order to punch the Serbian
suppotter.
The FAS had no legal right to prevent Mr. Bogdanov from entering into thestadium and once inside, "it was impossible to give him special attention at all
times". He could only be prevented from entering for two reasons: (i) if thecourt imposed a ban on attendance on him; or (ii) if on match day a steward
concluded by his behaviour that he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs
and would likely behave in a violent way or misbehave. In any case, Mr.
Bogdanov was not directly involved in any physical attack on Albanian
players and the FAS did file a criminal complaint against him.

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 44At the entrance of the stadium, FAS security personnel body searched theentering spectators and confiscated many dangerous and prohibited objects.
However, spectators are very creative in finding ways of sneaking into
stadiums prohibited objects (one practically uncontrollable method being theuse of body cavities); therefore, some dangerous and prohibited objects could
have made their way into the stadium.
150. In support of its positions, the Intervening Patty called as witnesses Mr. Lakovic(General Secretary of the FAS), Mr. Pantie (Chief of stewarding services) and Mr.
Ivanovic (captain of the Serbian national team).
151. Mr. Lakovic testified, inter alia, that he attended the Crisis Meeting and that at said
meeting the Match Referee, after consulting the UEFA officials, took the decision for
the Match to continue, which he then communicated to both teams.
152. Mr. Pantie testified, inter alia, that:i)1,200 security stewards work for him, 947 of which were deployed for the
Match and 109 of which surrounded the field at the beginning of the Match(whereas normally only 30 to 50 security stewards do so);ii)

two security rings were set up;iii)

the security stewards confiscated many dangerous objects at entry but someattendees managed to sneak into the stadium small pyrotechnical devices orfirecrackers;iv)

10 to 15 Serbian supporters managed to invade the field (out ofapproximately 100 people that attempted to do so), but were quickly
removed thereafter by security stewards;v)

one Serbian suppmter managed to grab a chair (which appertained to one of
the security stewards) with which he attacked an Albanian player, but hewas quickly removed thereafter by security stewards;vi)

the security stewards accused of punching Mr. Can a was actually protecting
him and punching the Serbian supporter who was beneath him, asconfirmed by an internal investigation conducted by his company. He
admits, however, that from the pictures it is understandable why one would
conceive that the security steward was punching Mr. Cana;vii)

the steward that waved his hands up and down to pump up the crowd was
fired;

viii)

he was satisfied with the performance of 946 out of the 947 security
stewards working that day; andix)

nobody from the stewarding team came into possession of the drone.

153. Mr. Ivanovic testified, inter alia, that:Tribunal Arbitral c!u Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 45i)he attended the Crisis Meeting, where the continuation of the Match was
discussed;ii)

the Match Referee did not say "I order you to come back onto the pitch";iii)"The referee said that as far as he is concerned the match can go on oncethe delegate passes the decision and that's why he instructed us to prepare
ourselves to go to the tunnel and then to start the continuation of thematch ... The referee stated that he wanted the match to be continued after
the delegate passes his decision and we were told to be ready with our team
to continue ... At the meetings we discussed a lot of different options in ashort period of time. The referee said if the delegate approves, we will go to
the pitch. Afterwards we were told that in 10 minutes we should all meet in
the tunnel, thus leading us to conclude that the delegate gave the 'green
light' ... This final meeting the referee said in 10 minutes I will be in thetunnel and I am asking for the continuation of the match. When it turned outthat it is only us in the tunnel, we were of course to run to the center of thepitch and the referee was supposed to start the game, so when he saw that
the Albanian side was not there he just whistled in the tunnel thus
proclaiming the match over and then we could return to our locker rooms";

iv)

after the Albanian team did not show up in the tunnel he went to theirchanging room and spoke with Mr. Cana who told him that his team was
not prepared to continue the Match;v)

the alleged injuries to the Albanian players were not mentioned at all during
the Crisis Meeting; andvi)

he did not investigate the physical condition of the Albanian players.

154. The Intervening Party makes the following requests in its observations:"1. The Appeal of the Appellant shall be dismissed, or it is to be declared
inadmissible respectively.
2. Para. 2 and 3 (with respect to the Appellant) of the Decision of the UEFA
Appeals Body of2 December 2014 shall be confirmed.
3. The Appellant shall bear the costs of this proceeding and shall compensate
the Serbian FA for its legal expenses with regard to the UEFA and CAS
proceedings."

X.

JURISDICTION AND APPLICABLE LAW

X.l

Jurisdiction

155. The jurisdiction of the CAS, which is not disputed by the Pmiies, derives from Article
R47 of the CAS Code and Article 62 para. I of the UEFA Statutes (Edition 2014).
156. According to Article R47 of the CAS Code: "An appeal against the decision of afederation, association or sports-related body may be filed with CAS if the statutes orTribunal Arbitral du Sporl
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 46

regulations of the said body so provide or if the parties have concluded a specificarbitration agreement and if the Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available
to him prior to the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulations of that body".
157. Pursuant to Atticle 62 para. I of the UEFA Statutes, "[a]ny decision taken by a UEFA
organ may be disputed exclusively before the CAS in its capacity as an appeals
arbitration body, to the exclusion of any ordin01y court or any other court ofarbitration".
158. Neither the Respondent nor the Intervening Party raised any jurisdictional objection,and the Parties confirmed the jurisdiction of the CAS by signing the Order ofProcedure.
159. The Panel considers that the CAS has jurisdiction to decide on the present dispute.
X.2

Applicable Law

160. Article 63 para. 3 of the current UEF A Statutes stipulates as follows: " .. .proceedings
before the CAS shall take place in accordance with the Code of Sports-related
Arbitration of the CAS".
161. Atticle R58 of the CAS Code provides that in an appeal arbitration procedure before theCAS, "[t]he Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable regulations and,subsidiarity, to the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a
choice, according to the law of the country in which the federation, association or
sports-related body ·which has issued the challenged decision is domiciled or according
to the rules of law that the Panel deems appropriate. In the latter case, the Panel shallgive reasons for its decision".
162. According to Article 5 DR, "the disciplin01y bodies base their decisions on UEFA 's
Statutes, regulations, directives and decisions, as well as the Laws of the Game andSwiss law and any other law that the competent disciplinary body considers
applicable".
163. Both the FAA and the FAS are members ofUEFA and are, thus, bound to comply withall its rules. UEF A is also bound to comply with its own rules. It follows that theapplicable law under which the Panel will decide the present dispute is to be found in
all pertinent UEFA rules (including, in particular, the DR and the Laws of the Game
referenced therein), with Swiss law applying subsidiarily.

Tribunal Arbitral du Sporl
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

XI.

page 47

MERITS

164. In light of the Parties' submissions, the Panel must decide:(A) whether the Appellant's request to sanction the FAS under Article 14 DR
for racist and discriminatory chants is an admissible appeal, or whether theAppellant lacks standing to sue in that regard;(B) whether the Appellant is responsible under Article 16 DR( e) for the drone
and illicit banner and, if so, whether the fine the UEFA Appeals Body imposedofEUR 100,000 is grossly disproportionate; and(C) whether the Appellant refused to continue to play and/or is responsible for
the Match not being played in full in violation of Article 27.01 CR and 21 DR.

165. The Panel will also, as indicated in its letter to the Parties of 15 April2015, set out its
reasoning for dismissing the Appellant's request for production of the submissions in
CAS 2015/A/3875 Football Association of Serbia v. UEFA.
166. The Panel will address each of these issues in separate subsections below.

XI.l Dismissal of Appellant's request for production of submissions in CAS
2015/A/3875 Football Association of Serbia v. UEFA
167. On 13 April 2015, the Appellant requested for the production of the submissions filed
in CAS 2015/A/3875 Football Association of Serbia v. UEFA (i.e. the parallel appeal
brought by the FAS against the very same Appealed Decision at issue here). The
Appellant declared in this letter that "it understands that there may be common
arbitrators in the CAS panels that will deal with CAS 2015/A/3875 and CAS
2015/A/3874 (with the possible exception of Mr. Sands who was nominated by theAppellant in CAS 2015/A/3874)" ... and that "[a]ccordingly, in order for all the parties
and all the arbitrators to be fully and equally appraised of all the material that has
been put before the arbitrators related to events surrounding the [M]atch", thesubmissions of CAS 2015/A/3875 Football Association of Serbia v. UEFA should be
produced. Both the Respondent and the Intervening Party objected to this request.
168. As previously mentioned, the Panel dismissed the Appellant's request. The reasons forsuch dismissal are the following. First, the present proceeding is separate from CAS
2015/A/3875 Football Association of Serbia v. UEFA (hereinafter "CAS
2015/A/3875"), which means that the FAA is a third party to that dispute. As such, the
FAA does not have a right of access to the submissions in that proceeding. Moreover,absent the consent of the concerned pmiies (UEFA and FAS), the arbitrators appointed
also in CAS 2015/A/3875 are in principle prevented from disclosing to the FAA thesubmissions filed in that proceeding. This is in keeping with Article S 19 of the CAS
Code, under which arbitrators must keep CAS arbitral proceedings confidential fromTribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 48third parties. That Article reads: "CAS arbitrators and mediators are bound by the dutyof confidentiality, which is provided for in the Code and in particular shall not disclose
to any third party any facts or other information relating to proceedings conducted
before CAS". Second, the FAA could have intervened in CAS 2015/A/3875, and in thatway obtained the submissions available in that proceeding, and also an opportunity tocomment on them; however, the FAA chose not to so intervene, with the consequencethat it remained outside that proceeding with no right to receive said submissions.
Third, the Panel points out that the FAA's request came at an unreasonably late stage ofthe proceeding- two days before the hearing- whereas the FAA had known for a longtime of the existence of the proceedings in CAS 2015/A/3875. Indeed, the existence ofthe parallel appeal brought by the Intervening Party against the Appealed Decision wasmade evident in the letter from the CAS Court Office dated 9 February 2015 (see supra
at para. 73), in which the Appellant was informed that "the Serbian FA has been
analogously ordered to produce [the] transcript [of the UEFA hearing] in theprocedure CAS 2015/A/3875 and the Panel, thus, encourages the FAs of Albania andSerbia to cooperate in this respect".
169. The Panel feels bound to note that if the Appellant is implicitly asserting, by requesting
the production of the submissions of CAS 2015/A/3875, that the President of the Paneland Mr. Schimke cannot be impartial in the present case because they are also
arbitrators in that proceeding, then the Appellant should have formally challenged theconstitution of the Panel. However, the Appellant has chosen not to do so, neither
before nor after the CAS hearing, despite the fact that, based on the language of the
CAS Court Office letter of 9 February 2015 (quoted in the preceding paragraph), it
should have known in the exercise of reasonable diligence - as required by the Swiss
Supreme Court (see judgments 4P.1 05/2006 of 4 August 2006, 4A_528/2007 of 4 April
2008 and 4A_110/2012 of 9 October 2012) - that two arbitrators in the present
arbitration were also sitting on the panel of CAS 2015/A/3875.
170. To conclude, the Panel confirms, based on the foregoing reasons, its dismissal of theAppellant's request for the production of the submissions of CAS 2015/A/3875
Football Association of Serbia v. UEFA.
XI. 2 The racist and discriminatory chants
171. The CEDB Serbia Decision (see supra at paras. 63-64) considered that the Serbian
supporters' chants "Kill, Kill the Albanians" and "Kill and slaughter them [theAlbanians] until there are none left" (see supra at para. 9) did not have a racist or
discriminatory connotation but merely a political one. On that basis it acquitted the FAS
from the charge of racist behaviour of its supporters under Article 14 DR, and decided
that only Article 16 para. 2(e) DR had been infringed (see supra at paras. 49-50). The

Tribunal Arbitral du Spm'l
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 49

UEFA Appeals Body confirmed such decision by holding as inadmissible, for lack ofstanding, the FAA's challenge against this portion of the CEDB Serbia Decision (seesupra at para. 66). The FAA appealed before the CAS this limb of the Appealed
Decision (see supra at paras. 95-1 07).
172. The Panel has prima facie formed the view that hateful chants calling for the killing or
extermination of one national or ethnic group, such as those quoted in the previous
paragraph, would be perceived by any reasonable onlooker as an insult to the humandignity of a group of persons on grounds of ethnic origin. However, as the Respondentand the Intervening Party disputed the FAA's standing to appeal in relation to thismatter, the Panel is allowed to review the CEDB's legal qualification of those chants
only if this Appellant's grievance is admissible under the relevant UEFA rules.
173. The Panel notes that, pursuant to Article 47 DR, the UEF A Statutes stipulate which
decisions taken by disciplinary bodies may be challenged before the CAS, and underwhich conditions.
174. According to Article 62 para. 2 of the UEFA Statutes, "Anv decision taken bv a UEFA
organ may be disputed exclusively before the CAS in its capacity as an appeals
arbitration body ... Only parties directly affected by a decision mqy appeal to the CAS"(emphasis added).
175. In order to determine whether the Appellant's request to sanction the FAS under Article
14 DR for racist and discriminatory chants is admissible, the Panel must assess whether
the Appellant is "directly affected' by the relevant decision.
176. The CAS has generally interpreted the words "directly affected' in A1iicle 62 para. 2 of
the UEFA Statutes in a restrictive manner. In CAS 2008/A/1583 & 1584, the Panelconsidered the A1iicle's wording, practical application and legislative history, and held:"The wording of Art. 62(2) of the UEFA Statutes does not do much to put theflesh on the bones of the provision either. At most one can see an attempt that notjust any effect on the complainant's legal position should suffice in order tojustify a right to appeal. Rather the decision taken by the association must
directly interfere with the rights of the person. The latter is always the case if thematter concerns the accused or the addressee of the (potential) measure by the
association or disciplinary measure. However, the wording of Art. 62(2) of theUEFA Statutes does not exclude the possibility that a third party can also be aparty, i.e. a person against whom the measure taken by the association is notdirectly aimed; for the provision refers to the actual state of being affected, not towhether someone is formally the addressee of the measure or not.
[ ... ]

Where the third party is affected because he is a competitor of the addressee ofthe measure/decision taken by the association, -unless otherwise provided by theTribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 50

association's rules and regulations - the third party does not have a right ofappeal. Effects that ensue only from competition are only indirect consequencesof the association's decision/measure. If, however, the association disposes in its
measure/decision not only of the rights of the addressee, but also of those of thethird party, the latter is directly affected with the consequence that the third party
then also has a right of appeal".

177. On this approach it is clear that Article 62 para. 2 of the UEFA Statutes permits a party
to appeal under two circumstances. The first is if the party is the addressee of themeasure imposed by UEF A. The second is if the party, even though it is a third party,
i.e. not the addressee of a measure, is "directly affected" by the measure imposed by
UEF A as opposed to "indirectly affected" by it, the latter encompassing the situation inwhich a third party is only affected due to its status as a competitor of the addressee ofthe measure taken by UEFA.
178. The Panel considers this approach to be correct. If one applies this test to the present
case, the Appellant is not "directly affected".
179. First, the Appellant is not the direct addressee of the CEDB Serbia Decision. Indeed,
while it was the FAA's complaint filed on 20 October 2014 that led the UEFA Ethics
and Disciplinary Inspector to bring charges against the FAS for racist anddiscriminatory chants, the addressee ofthe CEDB Serbia Decision was only the FAS.
180. Nor is the Appellant the direct addressee of the limb of the Appealed Decision
corresponding to the CEDB Serbia Decision's dismissal of Article 14 DR charges. To
be sure, the Appellant's appeal was eventually heard together with the FAS' appeal of
the CEDB Serbia Decision in a single proceeding before the UEFA Appeals Body and asingle decision was issued. However, the specific claims and sanctions remained
independent in the Appealed Decision and were dealt with by decisions addressed
separately to each of the Patties. In this way the addressee of the dismissal of Article 14
DR charges continued to be exclusively the FAS.
181. Second, the Appellant is not "directly affected" by the measures that may have beenreasonably applicable for an infringement of Article 14 DR (see szpra at para. 49). In
this respect, taking into consideration that this would have been the first violation of
Article 14 DR committed by the FAS, the Panel is of the opinion that, under Article 14paras. 2 and 3 DR, the appropriate punishment would have been within the range
between the sanction provided for a first offence ("a minimum of a partial stadium
closure") and the sanction applicable for a second offence ("one match played behindclosed doors and a fine of € 50, 000") with no room for additional disciplinary measures
under Article 14 para. 4 DR (which in the Panel's view would not be appropriate for a
first offense, absent any evidence of truly extraordinary circumstances). The Panelobserves that a sanction ranging between a partial stadium closure and a match behindT'ribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 51

closed doors and a fine would not have given any advantage to the Appellant. In fact,
paradoxically, it might have even been detrimental to the Appellant (as a match behindclosed doors could benefit one of the Appellant's competitors, which would have theoppmtunity to play in Serbia without any Serbian spectators present).
182. Moreover, the Panel finds that the Appellant is also not directly affected as the "victim"of the racist and discriminatory chants, at least in the sense of the established case law.
According to CAS 2008/A/1583 & 1584, this could only be envisaged if the UEFA
rules provided a specific right for a victim to appeal, which they do not. Indeed Article
62 para. 2 of the UEF A Statutes links the "directly affected" requirement to thedisciplinary decision and not to the conduct giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings("directly affected by a decision", emphasis added). Without such a right, the mere factthat an individual is a victim does not as such establish a standing to appeal a sanction
imposed on the offender. Such an interpretation would have far-reaching consequences
and could lead to the possibility of appeals from a potentially very large group of
persons. Under such an interpretation, for instance, any player who is injured by adangerous tackle or is bitten by another player would be able to appeal if he were
unhappy with the sanction imposed on the offender.
183. The Panel also rejects the Appellant's argument to the effect that, from a procedural
point of view, the consolidation of both appeals into a single proceeding before theUEFA Appeals Body and the fact that a single decision was issued, in view of the CAS'de novo power of review, means that the FAA has the right to appeal all aspects of the
Appealed Decision, including all the factual and legal elements of the Atticle 14 DR
charges against the FAS. As previously noted, despite the consolidation of both appeals
into a single hearing and a single decision, the specific claims and sanctions remained
independent in the Appealed Decision and were addressed separately to each of theParties.
184. Finally, the Panel does not agree with the Appellant's argument that its appeal should
be admitted as a matter of principle, because a reformatio in peius of the sanction
would not be possible whenever, in a case such as this, the UEFA Ethics andDisciplinary Inspector wrongly refrains from exercising his or her right under Article
25 para. 3(b) DR to lodge an appeal against too lenient a decision of the CEDB. The
Panel finds that such a procedural situation is not inappropriate, as it is commonplace inother sporting matters, for instance in relation to doping, where the competitors of theaccused athlete have no standing to appeal to the CAS against an excessively lenientdecision and can only hope that the WADA or the relevant anti-doping organization do
appeal such decision.

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 52

185. In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Appellant lacks standing to appeal thelimb of the Appealed Decision linked to the CEDB Serbia Decision's dismissal of
Article 14 DR charges and to request the Panel to impose sanctions on the FAS
pursuant to Article 14 DR for racist and discriminatory chants. As a result, the Paneldismisses that part of the Appellant's appeal in its entirety for lack of standing.
186. Due to the Appellant's lack of standing to appeal, the Panel may not review this limb of
the Appealed Decision. However, as set out below, the chants from the Serbian
supporters appear to be relevant in relation to the assessment of the issue of
responsibility for the Match not being continued (see infra at paras. 242-243).
XI.3 The drone and illicit banner incident
187. Atticles 8 DR and 16 DR provide that national associations and clubs are strictly liable
for the misbehaviour of their supporters. The Appellant does not dispute the legitimacy
under Swiss law or any other law of such strict liability provisions (nor does theIntervening Patty). Indeed, CAS jurisprudence has already attested to the lawfulness ofsuch rules under Swiss law (see CAS 2013/A/3094 and the awards addressed therein),taking into account the principle that strict liability for the behaviour of suppmters is afundamental element of the current football regulatory framework. It is also one of the
few legal tools available to football authorities to deter hooliganism and other improper
conduct on the part of suppmters (the Panel notes that strict liability is widely used bymany legal systems to deter activity that is seen as being particularly harmful to social
values and interests in circumstances in which it would be very difficult to prove thenegligence of the responsible party).
188. What the Appellant does challenge is the UEFA Appeals Body's conclusion that it was
comfmtably satisfied that the drone carrying the Albanian nationalistic banner wascontrolled by an Albanian supporter. In brief, the Appellant claims that there is noevidence to suppmt such a finding, that there is no minimum connection between the
FAA and the unknown operator of the drone, and that the UEFA regulations do notcontain any presumption allowing for the identification of the offender simply based on
the nature of the offence (the Appellant notes that even if there was such a presumption,
it could not operate here due to the circumstances of the case, i.e. that no Albanian fanswere in the stadium, the police searched the Albanian delegation for the drone's
operating device to no avail, and there is no proof Albanian fans were in the vicinity).
189. According to CAS jurisprudence, the term "supporter" is an open concept that is
intentionally undefined. It must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable andobjective observer.
190. In CAS 2007/A/1217 the Panel held:

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 53"The term 'supporter' is not defined. In particular, the Panel notes that it is not
linked to race, nationality or the place of residence of the individual, nor is it
linked to a contract which an individual has concluded with a national
association or a club in purchasing a match ticket. The Panel has no doubt that
it is UEFA 's deliberate, and wise, policy not to attempt to provide a definition
for 'supporter'. ... There is no UEFA provision that makes a distinction between'official' and 'unofficial' supporters of a team. Nor could such a provision
easily be drafted. UEFA could not be satisfied that its Disciplinmy Regulations
would ensure the responsibility of clubs for their supporters if such a distinction
were made. The only way to ensure that responsibility is to leave the word
'supporters' undefined so that clubs know that the Disciplinary Regulations
apply to, and they are responsible for, any individual whose behaviour would
lead a reasonable and objective observer to conclude that he or she was a
supporter of that club. The behaviour of individuals and their location in thestadium and its vicinity are important criteria for determining which team orclub they support."

191. Furthermore, the CAS has confirmed that it is not necessary for supporters to be in thestadium, or to be in sight. An association or a club becomes responsible for its
supporters' misbehaviours so long as the incident takes place at a match, even if the
supporters are not present within the stadium:"the Panel turns its attention to the meaning of the expression 'at a match' in
Article 6(1) of the UEFA DR and finds that this expression does not limit theClub's liability for misconduct of their supporters to the inner bounds of thestadium. The Panel finds that the notion 'at a match', incmporates misconduct
ofsupporters that could iJ?fluence the smooth running of the match involved.
The Panel observes that although the pe1petrators launched the fireworks fromoutside the stadium, three of them landed inside the stadium and therefore had adirect negative impact on the course or smooth running of the match, whichbecomes apparent because the referee felt obliged to shortly interrupt the game"(CAS 2013/A/3139).

192. In that case, the CAS panel held the club was liable because it was convinced, in theeyes of a reasonable and objective observer and on the basis of the facts in that case,that the unseen and unknown perpetrators who launched the fireworks had to beconsidered as supporters of the club.
193. The Panel finds these cases relevant insofar as they establish a common thread to theeffect that the assessment of whether an individual is suppmter of a team is based on
the perception of the "reasonable and objective observer".
194. The Panel adheres to the considerations of the aforementioned CAS jurisprudence. It
considers that the main issue in this matter is to assess whether the drone carrying the"Greater Albania" banner with various Albanian nationalistic symbols, which

'Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 54

undoubtedly influenced the smooth running of the Match, is to be considered as having
been prepared and operated by one or more supporters of the Albanian side, in the eyesof a reasonable and objective observer. The Panel is bound to recognise that noconclusive evidence has been put before it to attribute the use of the drone to any
identified Albanian suppmter. It notes, however, that: (i) within the stadium there wereabout one hundred people linked to and authorized by the FAA (see supra at para. 7);(ii) the remote control used to operate such a drone is a small device which is easily
hidden; (iii) after the abandonment of the Match the Serbian police searched the FAA's
delegation and the dressing rooms but it did not frisk, according to the evidence before
the Panel, the whole group of Albanians present in the stands; and (iv) the drone could
equally have been controlled by an Albanian supporter outside the stadium.
195. The majority of the Panel holds that a reasonable and objective observer would
conclude that a drone carrying a banner depicting Albanian extremely nationalistic andpatriotic symbols was highly likely to be operated by one or more Albanian supporters
inside or outside the stadium. Such an observer would take account of the following
elements: the nature of the symbols and words depicted on the banner; the fact that the
Albanian players reacted protectively towards the banner; and the fact that the bannergave rise to strongly negative feelings on the part of the Serbian players, staff andspectators in the stadium. Even if the supposed identification of the drone operator as an
Albanian living in Italy (as contended by the Intervening Patty, supra at para. 143) isnot backed by persuasive evidence, the majority of the Panel considers that the support
for the drone and banner incident shown by Albanians in social media tends to confirm
the conclusion that such incident is to be attributed to Albanian supporters.
196. The majority of the Panel recognises that the attribution ofthe deployment of the drone
and banner to Albanian supporters is based on a presumptive approach; however, thePanel notes that, as acknowledged in the Appellant's submissions, Swiss law accepts
the resmt to such an approach, as long as it is based on reasonable and objective criteria
and is rebuttable by the other party. In this connection, the Panel notes that, as can beseen in several CAS cases related to supporters' misbehaviour (see e.g. CAS
2002/A/423, CAS 2007/A/1217, CAS 2013/A/3094, CAS 2013/A/3139), in most
instances unruly spectators are not personally identified and a presumptive approach isused to determine whether an individual is considered to be a supporter of a given team,
based on the perception of a reasonable and objective observer. This presumptive
approach is based on a twofold rationale: (i) that most persons supporting a footballteam would consider it to be inappropriate (and even shameful and unbearable) todisplay in public the symbols of, or to show in any other manner support for andallegiance to, the opposing team (all the more so if there is animosity between the
supporters of the two teams); and (ii) that practical reasons require that unruly

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 55

supporters' behaviour at football matches is to be attributed on the basis of reasonable
and objective criteria to a given team, without the need to individually identify theperpetrators. Indeed, the attribution of suppmters' misconduct to either team typicallyarises from symbols suppmting a certain team worn or held by one or more individuals(shirts, hats, etc.), by the nature of the chants or slogans voiced by some spectators, by
the location of the relevant individuals within the stadium, or, as is the case here, by theparading of a banner showing symbols and words clearly suppmting one of thecompeting sides. The majority of the Panel considers all these elements to bereasonable and objective criteria. Per se, there is rarely absolute factual certainty as towhether the offender is a true supporter of the club or someone disguised as such.
Under such approach, it is for the association or club being charged by UEFA to rebut
such a presumptive attribution by providing evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, shortof identifying and apprehending each time the responsible individuals and obtaining a
confession or other compelling evidence about the side they support, it would bepractically impossible for UEF A (or other sports organizations) to impose strict liability
sanctions for supporters' misbehaviour.
197. On the facts before the Panel, the majority of the Panel considers that it is objectively
reasonable to proceed on the basis that the drone carrying Albanian extremely
nationalistic words and symbols was operated by an Albanian supporter. That
conclusion could in principle be rebutted by the Appellant, but it has not been so
rebutted. The Appellant has not submitted any evidence that would indicate the possible
involvement of Serbian supporters for the drone incident, or developed any plausible
theory (based on evidence) to suggest why any supporters other than Albaniansuppmters might have had an interest in operating the drone. The majority of the Paneldeems it to be highly unlikely, in the absence of any supporting evidence, that someSerbian suppmter(s) might have controlled the drone carrying a banner with Albanianextremely nationalistic words and symbols. It is difficult to see why a Serbian suppmter
would have seen benefit in seeking to cause a foreseeably chaotic situation among thehome fans, and one which would more likely than not have exposed the Serbian side to
sanctions, including the possible forfeiture of the Match.
198. It is also not conclusive, in the majority of the Panel's view, that the Albaniansupporter( s) who might have operated the drone could not be observed or identified. In
this respect, the Panel notes the following: First, the CAS has already dealt with asimilar situation in CAS 2013/A/3139, where flares were launched from outside thestadium and parachuted on the field of play, and did not attribute any relevance to thefact that the perpetrators could not be seen. Second, and decisively, very often
misbehaving suppmters may not be individually identified even when they are insideTribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 56

the stadium (as they may hide behind others, or cover their faces with scarves,
bandannas or masks).
199. In light of the foregoing, the majority of the Panel is comfortably satisfied that thedrone carrying the illicit banner was controlled by one or more Albanian supporters.
This gives rise to the responsibility of the Appellant.
200. Having determined that the Appellant is responsible for the drone and illicit banner, thePanel must address whether the fine UEFA imposed on the Appellant for such violationof Atticle 16(e) DR is evidently and grossly disproportionate so that it must be reduced.
To do so, the Panel must consider the relevant legal framework.
20 I. In this respect, the Panel notes that the CEDB and UEFA Appeals Body have full
discretionary power when it comes to imposing a sanction. They must, however, in
determining the disciplinary measure to be imposed, consider the objective andsubjective elements of an offence, and take into account the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances (see Article 17 DR supra at para. 51). The Panel fmther observes thatamong the disciplinary measures that may be imposed on member associations for the
infringements committed is a fine, which must be within in the range of EUR I 00 and
EUR 1,000,000 (see Atticle 6 DR supra at para. 47).
202. The Panel also notes that, according to well-established CAS jurisprudence, eventhough CAS panels retain the full power to review de novo the factual and legal aspects
involved in a disciplinary dispute, they must exert a degree of restraint in reviewing thelevel of sanctions imposed by a disciplinary body. Accordingly, CAS panels should
reassess sanctions only if they are evidently and grossly dispropmtionate to the offence:"[t]he measure of the sanction imposed by a disciplinmy body in the exercise of
the discretion allowed by the relevant rule can be reviewed only when the sanction
is evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offence" (CAS 2012/A/2762; CAS
2013/A/3139; CAS 2009/A/811-844).
203. Further, the CAS has held as follows:"Far from excluding, or limiting, the power of a CAS panel to review the facts andthe law involved in the di5pute heard (pursuant to Article R57 of the Code), such
indication only means that a CAS panel "would not easily 'tinker' with a wellreasoned sanction [ .. .} ". Therefore, a panel "would naturally ... pay respect to a
firlly reasoned and well-evidenced decision ... in pursuit of a legitimate andexplicit policy". In other words, this Panel does not consider warranted, norproper, to interfere with the Decision, to slightly adjust it" (CAS 2011/A/2645,
with reference to CAS 2011/A/2518 and CAS 2010/A/2283, citations omitted).

TribLmal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 57

204. The UEFA Appeals Body concluded that the EUR I 00,000 fine was legitimate andproportionate due to "the sophisticated method used to display the illicit banner ... since
it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to prevent such an intrusion" and as a way "todiscourage other supportersji·om using similar methods".
205. The majority of the Panel agrees with the UEFA Appeals Body's reasoning, and withthe fine of EUR I 00,000, even if it appears quite severe when compared to the fine
imposed for other incidents involving political banners and/or disrupting the match. The
majority of the Panel notes, in particular, (i) the fine of EUR I 0,000 the UEFA Appeals
Body imposed in the 2013/2014 UEFA Champions League match between Arsenal andBayern Munich for a banner reading "Say no to racism say yes to Kosovo", and (ii) the
fine of EUR 7,500 the UEFA Appeals Body imposed in the 2012/2013 UEFAChampions League match between Valletta FC and FK Partizan for four Serbian
suppmiers climbing over the stadium wall, invading the stadium and showing a politicalbanner, which interrupted the match for two minutes (see supra at para. 115).
206. Notwithstanding, the majority of the Panel is not prepared to reduce the fine, as it
considers that the appearance of the drone carrying the banner disrupted the Match in aserious manner, and contributed to the totality of the circumstances that caused the
Match Referee to prolong a Match stoppage that had already been initiated for otherreasons (flares landing on the field in the 41'1 minute of the Match). The operation of
the drone, with the apparent attempt to reduce its height and bring it closer to theground, appears to have contributed to further unrest in the stands and, thereafter, abrawl between Albanian and Serbian players. These events were fmiher disruptive of
the Match, and would most likely have been so even if there had not been a fieldinvasion by Serbian supporters. More generally, the majority of the Panel considers thatthe use of a drone in such circumstances constitutes a new and a very serious threat forthe security of a football match, much more serious than a banner shown or hung within
the stadium's stands and which can be easily removed. The majority of the Panel thus
holds that it is not evidently and grossly disproportionate to maintain the fine of EUR
100'000 imposed for the Appellant's violation of Article 16(e) DR.
XI.4 The abandonment of the Match

207. The Panel first turns its attention to the legal framework found in the Regulations of theUEFA European Football Championship 2014-2016 (the "CR") and the UEFA
Disciplinary Regulations (2014 Edition) (the "DR") regarding a refusal to play andresponsibility for a match not being played in full (see supra at paras. 46 and 52). The
Panel observes the following.
208. According to Article 27.0 I CR: "If an association retitses to play or is responsible for amatch not taking place or not being played in fitll, the UEFA Control and Disciplinwy

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 58

Body takes a decision in the matter" (emphasis added). Pursuant to Article 21 DR,
which covers forfeits, "If a match cannot take place or cannot be played in full, themember association [... ] responsible fOrfeits the match" (emphasis added). Atticle 21para. 4(a) DR proceeds to define the consequences of a match being declared forfeit:"the team forfeiting the match is deemed to have lost 3-0, unless the actual result is lessfavourable to the member association [ ... ] at fault, in ·which case that result stands"(emphasis added).

209. The Panel observes that, these UEFA provisions regulate two situations which canoccur either prior to a match beginning ("match not taking place") or once the match
has slatted ("match not being played in fitll"), in circumstances in which a national
association either (i) refuses to play, or (ii) is responsible for a match not being playedor being played only in patt. In the Panel's view, this means that if no refusal to playcan be established, the relevant question to be decided is which association may be said
to be "responsible" for the match not being completed. The Panel also observes thatneither UEFA provision offers details regarding the circumstances in which an
association will be "responsible", and that no assistance is to be found in other parts ofthese or other UEF A Regulations.
210. With regard to the disciplinary consequences, at the hearing the Parties addressed thequestion of whether these UEFA Regulations require responsibility to be attributed only
to one association, and whether, as a consequence of such an approach, the applicationof a 0:3 loss will be the necessary consequence for either team when a match is notcompleted (the "flipping of a coin" scenario evoked by the Respondent). The alternative
possibility is of a joint responsibility being envisaged in certain circumstances, with theconsequence that the adjudicatory body might have discretion under Swiss law todevise a different solution, depending on the facts of the case (see supra at para. 91).
The Panel is of the view that, in principle, there may be situations where a shared
responsibility should be attributed to both clubs or associations and that, were such thecase, the adjudicatory body might have a discretion under Swiss law in interpreting andapplying the UEFA rules so as to devise a fair and reasonable solution to a specific case(for example, a 0-0 result or a match replay with or without spectators). However, forthe reasons set out below (see infi·a at para. 239 et seq.), the Panel is of the opinion thatthe point does not arise in the present case, where the responsibility for the match not
being played in full is to be attributed to one national association.
211. Also of great importance, particularly in determining whether a refusal to play occurred,is Law 5 LG (see supra at para. 45), which, inter alia, stipulates that the referee has thepower and duty to stop, suspend or abandon the match, at his discretion, for any
infringement of the Laws of the Game or because of outside interference of any kind. In
addition, he has the power and duty to "indicate[} the restart of the match after it has

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 59

been stopped". The FIFA document setting forth the official "Interpretation of the Lawsof the Game and Guidelines for Referees" clarifies, with reference to Law 5, that if an
object thrown by a spectator hits a member of the refereeing crew, a player or a team
official, "the referee may allow the match to continue, suspend play or abandon thematch depending on the severity of the incident".

212. In reading Law 5 LG (which is not contradicted by the UEFA rules, quoted supra atparas. 46-57), the following is clear to the Panel: (i) only the referee has the duty andpower to decide that a suspended match must be restarted or abandoned; (ii) the referee,and only the referee, must clearly indicate that a suspended match must be restarted;(iii) such indication must take the form of a direct - in the sense of coming personallyfrom the referee and being addressed directly to the players- and unconditional order tothe concerned players, exactly as any other decision that the referee must take"regarding facts connected with play" (penultimate paragraph of Law 5 LG).
213. In this connection, the Panel notes the considerable protection afforded to referees'
field-of-play decisions, as reflected in long-established CAS jurisprudence. Thus, theCAS will not review a field-of-play decision unless there is persuasive evidence that
there has been arbitrariness or bad faith in arriving at such decision, even when thatdecision is recognized as being wrong, with the benefit of hindsight (see, inter alia,
CAS 2004/A/704, CAS 2001/A/354 & 355, CAS OG 12/010, CAS OG 02/007, andCAS OG 00/0 13). In these circumstances, given that a decision adopted by a footballreferee regarding facts connected with play is entitled to a significant degree ofprotection, the Panel considers that, in order to retain that protection, a decision must be
precise and free from ambiguity in the perception of the concerned athletes or teams.
Thus, for an order taken by a referee to have consequences, and for it to be protected, it
must be direct, clear and unconditional. The Panel notes that this approach is analogous
to the consistent CAS jurisprudence pursuant to which rules and regulations of a sports
organization must be clear and precise if binding upon athletes or teams (cf. e.g. CAS
2006/A/1164, CAS 2007/A/1377, CAS 2007/A/1437, and CAS 2014/A/3832 & 3833).
214. Therefore, in the view of the Panel, for an association to be sanctioned with a 0:3 forfeit
for its refusal to play after an interruption of the match, it is necessary for there to havebeen a direct, clear and unconditional order by the referee to the players to play. The
application of this point is addressed in the following sub-section.
a) Refusal to play

215. The Panel observes that in both the Appealed Decision and the CEDB Albania
Decision, the awarding of a forfeit against the FAA was based on the Appellant's
purported refbsal to play. In this regard, the Panel is bound to express its concern as tothe manner in which UEFA appears to have managed the situation it faced. On the'fribunal Arbitral clu Sporl
Courl of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 60

evidence before it, the Panel concludes that it does not agree with the UEFAdisciplinary bodies' findings: it is not comfortably satisfied that the Appellant received
from the Match Referee a clear, direct and unconditional order that it should continue toplay in circumstances in which the Match Referee had determined (and represented to
the Appellant's players) that he was satisfied that safety on the field of play had been
fully assured such that the Match could resume.
216. With regard to UEFA's management of the situation, the Panel first notes that theevidence before it indicates that the UEFA officers at the UEFA Match Centre in
Switzerland appear to have been keen to restart the Match. It may be that, not being
present at the stadium, they may have underestimated the gravity of the situation andthe perception of dangers felt by Albanian players and staff, as well as by Match
officials. The Panel has noted the testimony of the Match Referee who declared that his"recollection of the phone calls [with the UEFA Match Centre] was very much that weneeded to tty to get the game resumed They wanted to try to play the game. We needed
to. But we had to make sure that eve1ything was safe before we did this. [... ]once thesecurity was ensured then yeah, we were encouraged to try to play the game" (emphasis
added). The Panel has also had regard to the testimony of the other UEFA officers
offered at the UEFA Hearing (see supra at paras. 26).
217. Second, the Panel notes the apparent lack of clarity as to the division of powers andresponsibilities between the Match Referee, the UEFA Match Delegate and the UEFA
Security Officer. This is particularly so with regard to the question of whose
responsibility it ultimately was to decide whether or not the Match could continue. The
evidence before the Panel indicates that the three officials testified differently on thispoint. The Match Referee testified at the UEFA Hearing that he "liaised with the UEFAsecurity officer" and that, while his role was "to make sure that the pitch and theplayers are safe", it was the UEFA Security Officer's role "to ensure that the stadium
and the safety is correct ... and to ensure that [the Match] can continue [and to] say that
it is safe to take the players out", and that "the UEFA delegate and the security officer
are obviously [ .. .] there to ensure the safety of the stadium, and the spectators". The
UEFA Security Officer, on the other hand, testified that his role as a security officer
during a game was to "just advise the [Match] delegate", that he does not advise the
Match Referee, and that "the [Match] delegate is always there with the referee and I'mjust there to assist the delegate in his approach for this high risk match". In sharp
contrast, the UEFA Match Delegate testified that "the [Match] delegate has no security
responsibility. The only thing he can do is advise the security people", but also that heand the Match Referee "agreed that [they] could continue to play under thecircumstances" and that he did not "recall whether Mr. Egbers [the UEFA Security
Officer] made a judgement to restart the match".

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 61

218. The Panel considers that it would have been helpful if (i) the UEFA Match Centre had
been more prudent and more deferent to the Match officials in the evaluation of thesituation, and (ii) there had been greater clarity as to the respective roles of the Match
Referee, the UEFA Match Delegate and the UEFA Security Officer, and the division of
responsibilities. What is needed is a readily identifiable and clear chain of commandand decision-making to deal with the situation that was faced in this match.
219. Third, the Panel has been unable to ascertain to its comfmiable satisfaction, on the basisof the official repmts and the testimony of the Match Referee, the UEF A Match
Delegate and the UEFA Security Officer, that the Match Referee - the only official
having the power and duty to decide the resumption of the Match - took a clear,definite and unconditional decision that safety had been assured so that the Match could
resume. As addressed infra at paras. 226 et seq., no clear order appears to have been
given to either team to that effect. Rather, the evidence does no more than establish that
there existed a general desire and intention (or perhaps a hope) that the Match could berestarted if security was ensured.
220. In this regard, the Panel notes that:
The Match Referee's official repmt (see supra at para. 39) stated that "ft
became obvious that we would t1y and continue to play the remaining time
due for the first half'. Subsequently, at the UEFA Hearing the Match
Referee testified that "! think the final decision is between myself and the[UEFA] match delegate as to the final decision of the game will notcontinue"; later, after Counsel for the FAS asked him whether the UEFA
Match Delegate had taken a decision to continue the match he answered withsome ambiguity, that "We tried to continue the game, yeah. We left as longas we possibly could to t1y to get the game played. Unfortunately, it didn't
commence". The Match Referee also testified that "both teams were told thatthey must return to the field ofplay and continue the game once saf?ty was
ensured';The UEFA Match Delegate's official match report declared that "We ofcourse had contact with UEFA and had the intention to restart the matchagain for the remaining 4 (+2) minutes in the first half. Serbia was willingto, the security officials agreed but the Albanian team was not of('. He
subsequently confirmed this declaration at the UEFA Hearing, and testified
that he "didn't ask the players to continue, as of yet" and that they "just had
the general intention is to continue to play" and that "the decision was not torestart the match so it was not- we didn't have to check whether the safety
security was ok."On his pmt, when asked whether it was possible to continue the Match, theUEFA Security Officer testified at the UEFA Hearing, "Yes, but it was nevera real decision because the captain really told us it doesn't matter what you
decide" (emphasis added).

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for Sporl
CAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v. page 62
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

221. Fourth, the Panel notes that various steps taken by the Match Referee and UEFA
officials during the Match stoppage were not entirely clear and logical. The first stepthat was taken, apparently based on the encouragement from the UEFA Match Centre,
was to declare a general but conditional intention to restart the Match, once security
was ensured. However, on the basis of the evidence before the Panel it appears that thisstep was taken without offering the Albanian national team any clarity as to the basis onwhich it could be determined that safety would be assured (having regard in particular
to the fact that a safety steward had joined in the attack on the Albanian players).
222. A second step the Match Referee and the UEFA Match Delegate took was to ask bothnational teams what they thought about the intention to restart the Match. The Panel
does not find to its comfmiable satisfaction, however, that at this stage any definitive
assessment of the security situation had taken place (the Panel also notes that there is noevidence before it to indicate that any such definitive assessment occurred at a laterstage either). While the Match Referee testified that the UEFA Security Officer told
him that it was safe to resume the Match, the Panel notes that (i) no official reportmakes any mention of such an assessment having taken place; and (ii) a preponderanceof the testimony at the UEFA Hearing indicated that a definite security assessment was
not actually done by the UEFA officials and would only take place if the Albanian
players were willing to continue playing the Match. The Panel notes the following
testimonies of the UEFA Hearing:
The UEFA Match Delegate testified (emphasis added):(i) (when asked who were the security officials who had determined that thematch could continue) that he could not "recall ·whether Mr. Egbers [theUEFA Security Officer] made a judgment to restart the match. It was
actually the security re;,ponsibleji'Om the Serbian FA and I think the stadium
manager. I'm not completely sure about that" and that the FAS security
officials "gave the assurance that eve1ything was under control and that they
thought the match could be restarted'';(ii) "We discussed ·with the plavers that our intention was to continue to play.
And then they re.fitsed to continue to play. !(they would have said ves. then
the next step would have been that we would go out and convince ourselvesthat the circumstances would be good enough to continue to plav"; and(iii) "Well, to be honest, the decision was not to restart the match so it was notwe didn't have to check ·whether the safety security was okay. The match was
stopped because the Albanian players didn't want to play again. So, it wasifthey would've said yes, the Albanian players, then we would have to checkof course ourselves. Also, make a judgment on the security situation. We
didn't come that far because the Albanian players said no."The UEFA Security Officer only went as far as to testify that based on his
security assessment his professional opinion was that "[security officials] could

'T'ribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 63

make it safe"; but he clarified, "there was never a discussion, shall we go backagain because the Albanian captain always thought, as signing that in a
declaration, that he won't go back again" (emphasis added).

223. As such, the Panel considers that no definitive assessment of the security situation
seems to have been undertaken. Nor is there any evidence before the Panel to indicatethat the concerns of the Albanian players as to security had been fully addressed, or that
security had been ensured and could continue to be ensured. Rather, the evidence by thetestimony of the Match Referee indicates no more than that "both teams were told thatthey must return to the field of play and continue the game once safety was ensured''(emphasis added). This was confirmed by the UEFA Match Delegate at the UEFA
hearing when he stated that "!([the Albanian national team] had said yes [to continuing
the match], then the next step would have been that we would go out and convince
ourselves that the circumstances ·would be good enough to continue to play" (emphasis
added).
224. The Panel considers that what was needed before any other step was a clear anddefinitive view to be taken as to whether safety had been assured. In the absence ofsuch a view, there could be no reasonable basis for the UEFA officials to seek theopinion of the teams about the possibility of restmiing the Match, certainly not without
giving them the benefit of a clear and definitive assessment of the security situation.
225. In sum, the Panel is concerned that UEFA did not provide clarity and did not follow a
logical or sensible order as to the steps that should have been taken in order to be able
to determine whether the Match could continue.
226. Turning to the issue of whether the Albanian national team refused to play, based on theevidence in the record, and in particular the testimonies made at this CAS proceeding
and at the UEFA Appeals Body hearing of 2 December 2014, the Panel finds to its
comfortable satisfaction that the referee did not clearly, directly and unconditionallyorder the players to return to the field and continue to play the Match. As such, in theview of the Panel there cannot have been a refusal to play under the meaning of Article
27.01 CR.
227. In this respect, the Panel places considerable weight on the testimony of the Match
Referee given to the UEFA Appeals Body (no party summoned him to give evidence
before this Panel). The Panel treats as significant the following testimony, which wasoffered on the record :UEFA Judge Eilers: I ·would like to continue on the last question, and that was

if you gave both teams, and in particular the Albanian team and captain clear
instructions on the order to continue the game. That the game must becontinued. Or-this is in dispute, this is why I have to ask about this again. Did

Tribunal Arbitral du Sporl
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 64

you only communicate to them that you were going to attempt to continue thegame?

Match Referee: No, both teams were told that the game was to be played. We
must go out and continue the game. There was no debate. This was, we will goout and continue the game. The Albanians refirsed.
UEFA Judge Eilers: So, there was an immediate order fi·om you to the
Albanian team, to the Albanian captain, your team must continue?
Match Referee: Both teams were told they must go out and continue the gameonce we ensured the safety.
UEFA Judge Eilers: So, the Serbian team followed your proposal and the
Albanian team did not. Now, the Albanian team is saying that there was noclear instruction from your side to continue the match. This is an important
point.
Match Referee: Both teams were told that they must return to the field ofplay
and continue the game once the safety was ensured.
[" .]FAA Counsel: Yeah, and then when he says we are not going back, do you say
sorry but you have to go? That's what I think what was the question. And I'm
not sure that you really answered that because your answers was yes, I ordered
to resume the game, and then your words were once the safety is ensured. If
that's the order you gave, it's a conditional order to the players.
Match Referee: Both teams, both captains were aware that they had to go backout and continue the game (emphasis added).
228. The Panel has read this testimony with great care, and also listened to the audio
recording. The Panel notes that the Match Referee is a native English speaker and ahighly experienced referee, and that he appears to have chosen his words with very
great care. He was asked directly whether he personally ordered the teams to continue
the Match. The Panel notes that he did not say that he so ordered. Rather, he repeatedlyoffered an answer in the passive tense, and in a manner that indicates that a person otherthan him may have issued an instruction, or perhaps a suggestion. He told the UEFA
Appeals Body that both "teams were told that they must return to the field ofplay andcontinue the game once the safety was ensured' (emphasis added). Three points may be
noted with respect to the formulation of his words: first, he does not state that he told
the teams they must return; second, the formulation chosen is not of an order being
given; and third, such direction as was given was conditional on safety being "ensured".
There is no evidence before the Panel that the Match Referee ever told the teams thatsafety had been ensured.
229. The Panel proceeds on the basis that the words used by the Match Referee were notchosen unintentionally, and that their ambiguity reflected the circumstances in which heTribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 65

found himself. The Match Referee's conscious and repeated use of the passive tensepoints to the fact that someone other than him (the UEFA Match Delegate, the UEFA
Security Officer) may have told the teams to go back on the field, but that he never did
so, at least not in clear and direct terms that amounted to an order. The Panel is, thus,
unable to conclude that it has been furnished with clear proof, to its comfortablesatisfaction, that the Match Referee clearly, directly and unconditionally ordered the
Albanian players to restart the Match.
230. Having read the Match Referee's repott and having listened to his testimony, the Panelis persuaded that he may have been reluctant to restart the match in circumstances inwhich reasonable doubts persisted as to whether safety had been ensured, and would
continue to be ensured. The Panel considers that such an approach is entirely
reasonable, on the basis of the evidence before it as to the circumstances that pertainedat the time: given the outburst of violence by Serbian supporters, and even by one of the
stewards whose job was to ensure safety, that had been seen on the playing field just a
few minutes earlier, it was not unreasonable in the view of the Panel for the Match
Referee to have adopted the more ambiguous approach he chose, and not to havedirectly, clearly and unconditionally ordered the restart of the Match.
231. Such an approach is made all the more reasonable by reference to the events that hadcome before - the constant abusive, menacing and racist chanting; the throwing of
dangerous objects; the massive field invasion; and the physical attacks on the Albanian
players, which appear to have been of a severe nature, giving rise to the reasonableapprehension on the part of the Albanian players and staff, and of the refereeing crew,that they continued to be at risk of further harm. In fact, those supporters that invaded
the field and attacked the Albanian players could have been armed with dangerous
objects, such as a switchblade, that could have inflicted permanent injury, or evenworse, to one or more of the Albanian players or to a member of the refereeing crew.
This is far from an implausible scenario; as the Intervening Party has admitted, while
body searches were conducted at the entrance of the stadium, some dangerous andprohibited objects could have been sneaked into the stadium without much difficulty.
232. This Panel's finding is bolstered by the fact that there is no other convincing evidence
on the record to suppott the conclusion that the Match Referee clearly, directly andunconditionally ordered the teams that they must continue the Match.
233. Mr. Been, Mr. Egbers, Mr. Mirkov and Mr. Scott did not so testify at the UEFA
Hearing.
234. The Match Delegate Mr. Been, for instance, testified, inter alia, that:
UEFA Ethics and Disciplinary Inspector (Mr. Miguel Lietard): Hi, Mr. Been, I
just have two quick, or maybe just one quick question. Just if you can tell me if'fribunal Arbitral clu Sport
Court of Arbitration for Sporl
CAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 66

when you were in the dressing room with a meeting with referees, security
officials, the team captains and officials, are you aware of the referee tellingthe captains of the team that play would continue?

UEF A Match Delegate: Yes, the-we discussed. Sony. We discussed with both
captains what to do, and we made clear that our intention was to continue toplay. But Mr. Cana, the captain ofAlbania made it clear from the beginning onthat there was no way that his team would continue to play.
[ ... ]

UEFA Judge Eilers: But how are you able to instruct players to continue
playing without being sure that security was guaranteed?
UEFA Match Delegate: No. That's not the way it went. We discussed with theplayers that our intention was to continue to play. And then they refitsed tocontinue to play. If they ·would have said yes, then the next step would havebeen that we would go out and convince ourselves that the circumstances would
be good enough to continue to play.
UEFA Judge Eilers: I imagine that I am the team captain, and I would want toknow what responsibility I would assume if I fly and convince my players to goout. I would have to be sure that security is guaranteed. You say security at thatpoint was not guaranteed. At that point when you asked players to continue you
are saying the security had not been yet guaranteedUEFA Match Delegate: I didn't ask the players to continue, as o[yet. We just
had the general intention is to continue to play. And it was not a matter that thecaptain asked us whether the circumstances were okay. He had made a
judgment of himself and he thought that-and the emotional and the physicalcircumstances were such that they couldn't continue to play. Even, there was noother question at stake at that ve1y moment" (emphasis added).
235. The Panel's finding is further supported by the testimony of witnesses who appeared at
the CAS hearing on 17 April 2015:
Mr. Cana testified that the Match Referee only expressed his intention to try
and finish the first half once security measures were ensured, and that the
Match Referee simply asked Mr. Cana whether his team was prepared to do so.
According to Mr. Cana, however, the Match Referee never issued a clear
instruction that the Match would restart, never indicated his view that safety
had been and would continue to be assured, and did not order the teams toreturn to the playing field and resume the game.
Mr. De Biasi testified that at no point did he receive or hear an order from the
Match Referee to continue the Match.
While Mr. Lakovic testified before the Panel that the Match Referee gave clear
instructions that the Match would be resumed and that the teams were told toprepare to return to the field, this is contradicted by his witness statement,Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 67

where he indicated that the UEFA Match Delegate and the UEFA Security
Officer were the ones who gave said instructions, not the Match Referee. Whenquestioned by the Panel on this apparent discrepancy, Mr. Lakovic failed togive an adequate explanation.
Mr. Ivanovic did not give clear testimony that the Match Referee personallyand unconditionally ordered the Albanian side to continue the Match (see supra
at para. 153).
236. Finally, the Panel's conclusion is also supported by contemporaneous evidence, namely
the declaration signed by Mr. Carra in the dressing rooms during the forced stoppage ofthe game (see supra at para. 30). Nowhere in this statement is there any indication that
Mr. Carra was given by the Match Referee a clear, direct and unconditional order tobring his team onto the playing field and to resume play, or that he refused such anorder coming from the Match Referee. Rather, it seems that Mr. Carra only expressedthe view that his team was mentally and physically unable to play due to the totality ofincidents that occurred in the course of the game, including those occurring after the42"d minute of the Match.
237. The evidence before the Panel points to the existence of a desire (and perhaps anintention) to be able to restart the Match in the event that safety was - and would
continue to be- ensured. In the course of the process of intending to be in a position to
be able to restart the Match, the evidence indicates that the Match Referee simply asked
the teams whether they were prepared to do so, and possibly indicated his hope thatthey might be able to do so. Significantly, however, there is no evidence on the recordthat the Match Referee issued a clear, direct and unconditional order to "indicate[} therestart of the match after it ha[d} been stoppecf', as stipulated in Law 5 LG. As such,
the Panel is unable to conclude that there was a refusal to play on the part of the
Albanian side. For there to have been such a refusal, there must first have been an order
to continue playing, which should have been clear, should have been directed to the
Albanian team, and should have been unconditional (in other words, not dependent
upon some future determination as to whether safety had been and would continue to be
assured). In the absence of such an order the Panel concludes that there cannot havebeen a refusal. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Appellant cannot be said tohave violated Atticle 27.0 I CR.
238. If the Panel had been provided with clear evidence that the Match Referee did in factdirectly and unconditionally order the teams to continue to play the Match, which wasan order that could only be given by the Match Referee in accordance with Law 5 LG,then it might have concluded that the Appellant had refused to continue to play incircumstances that would give rise to a violation of Article 27.01 CR. However, therecord discloses no such evidence, also bearing in mind the CAS jurisprudence
mentioned above in para. 213.

Tribunal Arbitral du Sporl
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 68b) Responsibility for Match not being played in full239. In these circumstances, the Panel must consider whether, notwithstanding the fact thatthe evidence does not reveal that the Appellant refused to play following an orderissued by the Match Referee that it do so, it might nevetiheless be responsible for the
Match not being played in full in violation of Article 27 CR. The Panel finds that theAppellant is not so responsible. Rather, the fact that the Match was not played in full
was due to the totality of the circumstances that pertained and, in the Panel's view,
these are the responsibility not of the Appellant but ofthe Intervening Patiy.
240. To be sure, the drone incident and the Albanian players stripping away the banner from
Mr. Mitrovi6 were one element that contributed to the chain of events that led to the
Match not being played in full. However, in the view of the Panel the incident wasneither the principal factor nor a decisive factor.
241. The Panel notes that when the drone incident occurred the Match had already been
stopped, in the 42nd minute. The match had been stopped because of the unruly
behaviour of the fans in the stadium, who had thrown objects at Albanian players andstaff before the Match began (see supra at para. 8), and continued to do so once it had
started (see supra at para. II).
242. The Panel notes too that, as already remarked, throughout the Match there was acontinuous chanting by supporters in the stadium, as confirmed by the available video
clips of the Match. The chants included "Kill, kill the Albanians" and "Kill andslaughter them [the Albanians] until there are none left". These chants were bothoffensive and imbued with racist and discriminatory content and, in the view of the
Panel, were also deeply menacing.

243. The Panel's findings as to the character of the chants are significant in relation to thefindings as to the factors that led the Match to not being played in full. The chants
contributed to a threatening and intimidating atmosphere, one in which the feelings of
security and safety of the Albanian players were bound to be compromised, patiicularly
in view of what happened after the 42nd minute of the Match.
244. The Panel refers to the fact that, without any appreciable resistance from FAS security
personnel, (i) at least 15 individuals were able to invade the field and to physicallyattack the Albanian players aggressively by tackling, kicking and throwing punches(one of these individuals even managing to run all the way near the rim of the centre
circle of the field and to hit an Albanian player on the shoulder with a plastic chair), and(ii) Serbian supporters were able to throw objects including coins, bottles and chairs at
the Albanian players and even physically attack them aggressively by tackling, kicking
and throwing punches as they exited the field. As previously mentioned, these incidents

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 69

were of a severe nature, as they posed a very serious threat to the security and health of
the Albanian players (see supra at para. 230).
245. Moreover, the Panel refers to the fact that (i) the FAS security personnel were
lackadaisical in their efforts to remove those Serbian supporters that invaded the fieldand even those that attacked the Albanian players (e.g. the Serbian fan who after
attacking the players at the tunnel was left to calmly sit by the corner flag and Mr.
Bogdanov and his posse who walked freely around the field); and (ii) as the Panel has
found, following the field invasion, even a security steward attacked an Albanian
player. In circumstances in which players are violently attacked by spectators and evenby the individuals whose services have been retained to ensure their safety and security,
the fears of the Albanian players are entirely reasonable and understandable. Indeed,those menacing chants of thousands of people that professional players are accustomed
to ignoring while playing (as stated by the Albanian captain in his oral testimony)acquire a whole different meaning- a very sinister and realistic one- when those same
people are able to personally attack them on the field. As the Albanian coach, Mr. De
Biasi, testified before the Panel, after what he saw on the pitch he was fearful that
Serbian supporters might be able to break into the dressing rooms, using violent means.
246. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the reluctance of the Albanian players to return to thefield - in the absence of a direct and clear order from the Match Referee, or adetermination that safety had been assured - was understandable and reasonable. In
particular, as the Albanian players were the victims of a frightful and shocking assault,
the Panel does not view their attitude in the dressing rooms as the event, in terms of
causal link, that brought about the abandonment of the match.
247. The Panel also understands why the totality of circumstances - the throwing of
dangerous objects, the chanting, and the attacks by Serbian supporters and even asecurity steward- might have caused the Match Referee to hesitate to conclude that thesafety of the players had been ensured and would continue to be ensured.
248. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Match stoppage and the eventual Match
Referee's abandonment of the Match were proximately caused by the security lapses ofthe Match organizers and the intolerable and outrageous acts of violence exerted on the
Albanian players by the Serbian supporters and by at least one security steward. For
these acts the FAS bears the exclusive responsibility in accordance with the UEFA
rules. The drone incident certainly did not assist in calming matters down, but in all thecircumstances it is these other appalling acts of behaviour which are the significant
factors in causing the Match to be abandoned.
249. As such, the Panel holds that the FAS and not the Appellant must be considered as
responsible for the Match not being played in full in violation of Article 27.0 I CR.

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 70

250. This being the case, the Panel must draw the disciplinary consequences of its holding.
Under Article R57 of the CAS Code and the related CAS jurisprudence, the Panel has
full power to review de novo the facts and the law (see, e.g., CAS 2009/A/1880 & 1881,
CAS 2009/A/1545; CAS 2008/A/1594) and it "may issue a new decision which
replaces the decision challenged or annul the decision and refer the case back to theprevious instance".
251. If UEFA rules provided a range of sanctions for such a disciplinary violation, the Panelwould consider the possibility to refer the case back to the UEFA Appeals Body to
decide the appropriate sanction to be inflicted to the FAS, so as to allow the FAS to set
forth its defence as to the proportionality of the sanction. However, the FAS chose tointervene in these proceedings, and it acknowledged at the hearing that under Article 21
DR the sanction for an association (or club) responsible for the abandonment of a match
is automatically a 0:3 forfeit (unless the actual result were less favourable to the faulty
association or club). In circumstances in which the FAS intervened in theseproceedings, a referral back to the previous instance would serve no purpose, as the
FAS would not be in a position to obtain a different sanction for its responsibility incausing the abandonment of the Match. Accordingly, the principle of procedural
economy requires this Panel to directly issue a new decision which sets aside andreplaces this limb of the Appealed Decision. As a result, the Panel holds that, pursuant
to Article 21 DR, it is the FAS which must bear the consequence of a 0:3 forfeit.
252. Moreover, the Panel finds that such a sanction is entirely proportionate, even if it isadded to the sanctions that the Appealed Decision already imposed on the FAS (a threepoint deduction and a fine ofEUR 100,000). In the Panel's view, the inviolability of the
field of play and the protection of the safety of the players from actions of spectators
should be fully guaranteed at all times. The Panel feels that the significant gravity ofwhat happened (and of what might have happened in less fortunate circumstances) inthe Belgrade stadium - a considerable number of spectators invading the field andviolently attacking the visiting team, in the face of indifference on the pmt of the
stewards (and even the suppmt of a few of them) - would justify the imposition ofsevere sanctions, such as disqualification from the current UEFA competition. Hence,even if the loss of the Match is inflicted on top of the other sanctions, the total
punishment still appears to be proportionate. Nor could the FAS invoke to its benefit
the double jeopardy principle, because the additional sanction resulting from this award
is inflicted on a count (responsibility for the abandonment of the Match) which the
Appealed Decision did not attribute to the FAS.
253. In light of the foregoing, the Panel ovetturns this limb of the Appealed Decision andgrants the Match forfeiture of 0:3 in favour of the Appellant. It follows that the issues

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEF A & Football Association of Serbia

page 71

the Appellant raised regarding state of necessity and fault are moot and the Panel needs
not discuss them.

XII.

COSTS

254. Given that this is a disciplinary case of an international nature, pursuant to Articles
R65.1 and R65.2 of the CAS Code the proceedings are free of charge, except for the
Court Office Fee, which the Appellant has already paid and is retained by the CAS.
255. According to Article R65.3 of the CAS Code: "Each party shall pay for the costs of its
own witnesses, experts and inte1preters. In the arbitral award, the Panel has discretion
to grant the prevailing party a contribution towards its legal fees and other expenses
incurred in connection with the proceedings and, in particular, the costs of witnesses
and interpreters. When granting such contribution, the Panel shall take into accountthe complexity and the outcome of the proceedings, as well as the conduct and financial
resources of the parties".
256. In exercising its discretion with regards to legal fees, the Panel considers that theAppellant's appeal has been upheld to a significant extent (having regard to theimportance in these proceedings of the question of responsibility for the Match not
being played in full). It is thus of the view that it is fair and appropriate to hold the
Respondent and the Intervening Party responsible for contributing each CHF 10,000
towards the Appellant's legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with theseproceedings.

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for SportCAS 2015/N3874 Football Association of Albania v.
UEFA & Football Association of Serbia

page 72

ON THESE GROUNDSThe Court of Arbitration for Sport rules:

I. The appeal filed on 30 December 2014 by the Football Association of Albania against
the decision adopted on 2 December 2014 by the UEFA Appeals Body is partiallyupheld.

2. The Football Association of Albania's request to impose Article 14 DR sanctions on theFootball Association of Serbia is dismissed for lack of standing.
3. The fine ofEUR I 00,000 imposed on the Football Association of Albania is confirmed.
4. The UEFA Appeals Body's decision of 2 December 2014 that the Football Associationof Albania is deemed to have violated Article 27.01 of the Regulations of the European
Championship 2014-2016 and Article 21 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (2014
Edition) is set aside.
5. The UEFA 2016 UEFA European Championship qualifying match played between the
Serbian and Albanian national teams on 14 October 2014 shall be deemed to have been
forfeited by the Football Association of Serbia by the score of0:3.
6. UEFA and the Football Association of Serbia are ordered to contribute each to the legal
fees and expenses incurred by Football Association of Albania in the amount of CHF
I 0,000 (ten thousand Swiss Francs).
7. All other or further requests or motions submitted by the Parties are dismissed.
Done in Lausanne, 10 July 2015
THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

Massimo Coccia
President of the Panel