CAS 2015/A/4345, Trabzonspor Sportif Yatirim A.S. v. UEFA & CAS 2015/A/4347, Fenerbahce SK v. Trabzonspor A.S. and UEFA, Award of 13 April 2017

The case under review is related to the July 2011 Turkish match-fixing scandal and could be described as the second wave of the Turkish match-fixing saga, after Fenerbahçe S.K. v UEFA in 2014. Unlike the first wave, the case pitched another Turkish club, Trabzonspor, not only against UEFA but also against its old rival Fenerbahçe S.K. in a hearing room in Lausanne, Switzerland. As will be discussed further, these complex appeal arbitration proceedings, besides being a landmark case for Turkish and European football, also had an important impact on UEFA’s match-fixing related legal framework. The arbitral proceedings involved highly complex, substantive and procedural issues such as: standing to appeal; corporate veil piercing; UEFA Admission Form and the notion of match-fixing. The importance of this case can be summarised as follows: first, prior to this case, UEFA rules and regulations were silent on what type of match-fixing proceedings should be mentioned by a football club when submitting its Admission Form for the UEFA Champions League or the UEFA Europa League. The Panel interpreted the relevant UEFA regulations at the time to only require parties to mention those match-fixing proceedings that were “currently” opened. This decision presumably led UEFA to immediately amend its rules and regulations in light of the findings of the Panel, which will be discussed in detail. Second, on the question of whether a parent company of a football club can appeal a UEFA decision involving that football club before the CAS, the Panel found that the parent company cannot appeal such a decision unless it can prove that it is sufficiently “affected” by it in accordance with UEFA rules and regulations. Third, in relation to the Swiss corporate veil piercing theory, Durchgriffshaftung, the Panel found that this can only apply in cases involving abuse of rights, and it can only be used to extend the arbitration agreement to a third party who is using the corporate veil to avoid liability. This case commentary will therefore discuss: (1) the facts and procedure of the case; (2) the issues in dispute and the Panel’s findings; and (3) the Author’s analysis of those findings.