projectriver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,259
Did they not? That's not how I read it. (there may be more, it is a very long document)
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf
109. Although the Panel does not exclude the possibility that one or more of MCFC’s rights in the proceedings before the Investigatory Chamber may not have been fully respected, the Panel has confidence that, if such procedural violations were held to exist, the Adjudicatory Chamber will right such wrongs and/or take such alleged CAS 2019/A/6298 Manchester City FC v. UEFA - Page 31 violations into account in its decision, and if it does not, MCFC has the possibility of appealing the Adjudicatory Chamber’s final decision to CAS. (obviously not righted)
110. The Panel does not consider it appropriate to enter into a detailed analysis of the alleged deficiencies in the Investigatory Chamber proceedings, so as not to prejudge issues that are currently pending before the appropriate forum, i.e. the Adjudicatory Chamber, and which could later be brought in an admissible proceeding before CAS. In addition, the present Award is limited to the question of admissibility only and, thus, cannot trespass into the merits of MCFC’s appeal, i.e. whether or not its rights were violated by the Investigatory Chamber.
111. The Panel finds that it suffices to conclude that, on a prima facie basis, any procedural violations in the proceedings before the Investigatory Chamber were not of such a nature that MCFC legitimately lost all faith in fair proceedings and a fair decision by the Adjudicatory Chamber, entitling it to file an appeal against the Referral Decision to CAS directly.
112. However, this finding by the Panel also implies that the Adjudicatory Chamber will seriously address and assess MCFC’s procedural complaints as promised by UEFA in its submissions before this Panel in these CAS proceedings. In any event, such alleged procedural deficiencies will be reviewable in the context of an admissible appeal to CAS against a decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber. G. The Alleged Leaks and the Potential Impact Thereof on the Impartiality of the Members of the Investigatory Chamber
113. The alleged leaking of information by members of the Investigatory Chamber or the UEFA administration about the proceedings against MCFC is worrisome. Again, the Panel is mindful not to trespass into the authority of the Adjudicatory Chamber to address MCFC’s procedural complaints in detail. However, it must be noted that MCFC’s complaints as to the leaks do not, on a prima facie basis, appear to be entirely without merit, particularly concerning the First and Second Leak, […], and the Fifth Leak, which refers to an “insider” at UEFA as the source.
114. It puzzles the Panel how the CFCB Chief Investigator could be so confident to “vehemently reject [MCFC’s] allegations of unlawful activities, either by myself or by any of the members of the UEFA CFCB, in particular of its Investigatory Chamber (IC)”, and to state that MCFC’s allegations regarding the leaks were “groundless in the merits” and to “assure [MCFC] that at no time, myself or any of my fellow members of the IC have violated any rights of your club”.
Yes I've read it once or twice (!).
109 only says "doesn't exclude the possibility...rights not fully respected" (not exactly scathing)
110 says nothing relevant to the point
111 says if there was failings they were not sufficient to say "MCFC legitimately lost all faith in fair proceedings and a fair decision by the Adjudicatory Chamber"
112 says nothing relevant to the point
113 says the leaks were "worrisome" and City's complaints "not entirely without merit". Its relevant and meaningful context for CAS 2 but its hardly game changing.
114 is similar to 113 in importance.
In any event, all can be cured on these topics by the de novo review of the case at CAS. It therefore becomes just background and neither here nor there. There is no victory for City just from CAS saying the AC didn't act well. CAS have to find the ACs judgment on matters was wrong.