City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

aguero93:20 said:
Uefa are talking bollocks, the case hasn't been thrown out, it's yet to be heard. A preliminary judgement was rejected. That's equivalent to a murder trial being put back and the defendants lawyer celebrating his client's acquittal.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate. THought it weird how only the Guardian has reported on it.
 
aguero93:20 said:
Uefa are talking bollocks, the case hasn't been thrown out, it's yet to be heard. A preliminary judgement was rejected. That's equivalent to a murder trial being put back and the defendants lawyer celebrating his client's acquittal.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's the case (but I'm no lawyer). My understanding is that the Belgian Court of First Instance referred the case to the ECJ as it felt it wasn't competent to judge on whether the FFP regulations were contrary to Article 101. This request for a preliminary judgement is common where national courts within the EU want a view from the ECJ.

So effectively they ask the ECJ for a ruling. We've only got UEFA's statement so far but it seems that the ECJ has indicated to the BCFI that it believes there is no breach of Article 101 and they (the BCFI) will use that ruling in deciding the case.

They would need serious reasons to overturn that ruling, is my understanding but I'll wait to see what Dupont says.
 
Cheers mate....any legal bods know for sure??? And why are only the Guardian reporting it? Thought this would be mega news?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'm not sure that's the case (but I'm no lawyer). My understanding is that the Belgian Court of First Instance referred the case to the ECJ as it felt it wasn't competent to judge on whether the FFP regulations were contrary to Article 101. This request for a preliminary judgement is common where national courts within the EU want a view from the ECJ.

So effectively they ask the ECJ for a ruling. We've only got UEFA's statement so far but it seems that the ECJ has indicated to the BCFI that it believes there is no breach of Article 101 and they (the BCFI) will use that ruling in deciding the case.

They would need serious reasons to overturn that ruling, is my understanding but I'll wait to see what Dupont says.
Click to expand...

I understood that it was the preliminary ruling on restricting UEFA from moving to the -€30m deficit as that was the more immediate matter under decision.
 
coleridge said:
Without reading beyond this thread, it seems that the Belgian court has essentially attempted to impose a remedy on a court above and is thus acting ultra vires.

In any event, the European Court [ECJ?] will doubtless have decided that it needs to consider all the evidence before the final determination is made and then consider, if FFP effectively 'loses', what the appropriate remedy should be.

In English, the Belgium court can't tell the EU court what the punishment is before the EU court has made a decision after hearing both sides of the story.

I may be wrong as I have not read anything about it, of course.
Click to expand...
I'll go with this for the moment, although Dupont has been uncharacteristically quiet.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
it's nothing to worry about it's not passing judgement on the case at all.

“This order has a purely procedural scope and does not prejudge the debate on the substantive questions concerning the legality of FFP,” said Dupont.

http://www.cityam.com/220741/bullish-uefa-declares-victory-legal-fight-over-ffp-future
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that. In fact the I'm sure you're wrong that it's not passing judgement on the case. However, even if they have rejected the three specific questions they've been asked to rule on, which challenge the legitimacy of FFP, it just means everything gets shifted back to Belgium.

The BCFI will presumably reject Dupont's case and it will then go to the Belgian Appeal Court. It's expected to be another 12 months before that appeal is heard.

He's lost a battle but the war has a long way to run.
 
From CityAM

“Uefa notes with satisfaction the ruling of the ECJ dated 16 July 2015 in which it has declared “manifestly inadmissible” the recent request for a preliminary ruling on the legality of FFP made by the Brussels Court of First Instance (BCFI),” Uefa said.

“The ECJ declared that request as pointless because the court making it (the BCFI) had already – in June 2015 – declared itself incompetent to rule on the merits of the so-called Striani case. The ECJ also observed that the national court had failed to provide any of the necessary information to enable the ECJ to address issues of European competition law.

“The ECJ has therefore had for the first time the opportunity to consider the Financial Fair Play system, and has taken the view that the Striani case orchestrated in Belgium has no merits whatsoever.”

Striani’s lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, who 20 years ago helped to transform the European football transfer market by securing the abolition of fees for out-of-contract players, insisted the ECJ’s decision was only a minor setback and did not make judgement on the case’s legal merits. “This order has a purely procedural scope and does not prejudge the debate on the substantive questions concerning the legality of FFP,” said Dupont.
 
As I expected the whole thing has to take it's course and will take up to another 2 years or so to get a final conclusion.
- ECJ threw it out in 2014 because it should have been dealt with by a local court to start with. (The judgement later proves to be suspect).
- Case taken to local court.
- Local court finds a case needs to be answered and recommends a provisional judgement by ECJ
- ECJ throws out the provisional judgement this week
Ball is in UEFA's court now.
Did they go to appeal in Belgium (I assume they did but cannot find a record of this on T'interweb) or does it go straight to the ECJ?
 
Last edited:
BerkshireBlue said:
well since it's come from Dupont's mouth I prefer to believe him than you
Click to expand...
It was you, not Dupont, who paraphrased what was said in that article as not passing judgement on the case. Like I said, it doesn't stop the case but merely guides or instructs the Belgian court, which is what the court of first instance asked for. So it's procedural in that sense. He will still get the opportunity to test the validity of FFP.

It's like if you go to your doctor and he refers you to a consultant because he's not sure what's wrong with you and wants an expert opinion. The consultant examines you and says you've got a condition for which he recommends a course of treatment. The GP takes his word for it and issues you a prescription. After a month, having finished the course of treatment, you're no better and go back to the doctor, asking for a second opinion.
 
I'll make it easy for you Prestwich_Blue

Dupont said "it does not prejudge the debate on the substantive questions concerning the legality of FFP"
 
BlueAnorak said:
As I expected the whole thing has to take it's course and will take up to another 2 years or so to get a final conclusion.
- ECJ threw it out in 2014 because it should have been dealt with by a local court to start with. (The judgement later proves to be suspect).
- Case taken to local court.
- Local court finds a case needs to be answered and recommends a provisional judgement by ECJ
- ECJ throws out the provisional judgement this week
Ball is in UEFA's court now.
Did they go to appeal in Belgium (I assume they did but cannot find a record of this on T'interweb) or does it go straight to the ECJ?
Click to expand...

The European Commission threw it out in 2014, not the European Court of Justice.
 
The update I have just received is is that this is bad luck as much as anything.

The Belgian Judge did not include enough justification in his request and the EUCJ rejected it on procedural grounds

This has now gone to appeal and it is expected that the appeal court will send the request to the EUCJ again but this time show the appropriate lever of rigor.

Will forward updates as I have them but for now ... nothing to see here ,
 
I doubt the ECJ used the term 'orchestrated' and I'm not convinced it's said 'no merit whatsoever' either.
That sounds like UEFA's own misrepresentation of what the ECJ has actually said.

'Orchestrated' is particularly offensive as it's usually used to describe something brought about in a suspect / artificial manner. Cheeky sods.

If the ECJ used that word, I'll eat my hat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top