I have found an interesting case with some analogies to what seems to be at the core of the City case. In CAS 2013/A/3233 PAE Giannina 1966 v. UEFA https://arbitrationlaw.com/sites/default/files/free_pdfs/3233.pdf:
"The Investigatory Chamber recommended the Adjudicatory Chamber to refuse admission of [PAE] to the UEFA 2013/2014 Europa League. According to the findings of the Investigatory Chamber, [PAE] had failed to disclose the full amount of its personal debts. In addition to the contracts registered with the HFF, the Appellant had apparently “private agreements” with at least three of its employees during the reporting period under investigation. The Investigatory Chamber considered that these agreements should have been recognized in the annual financial statements of the Club, in accordance with the “fair presentation” requirement set forth in Annex VII A (3) of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (edition 2012) (“the CL&FFP Regulations”). As a result, it was held that the Appellant had breached Article 47 of the CL&FFP Regulations."
UEFA banned PAE and amongst other things claimed "the annual financial statements of [PAE] did not contain the total amounts which had been effectively paid to its employees. It further explains: “Whether the “unofficial” part of their salary has been paid or is irrelevant: if that part has been paid – but the corresponding payments are not mentioned in the accounts – the audited financial statements are inaccurate; and if that “unofficial” part has remained unpaid – but the corresponding debts are not mentioned in the account - the audited financial statements are also inaccurate.” Accordingly, the annual financial statements of [PAE] do not truly represent the situation which amounts to a breach of Article 47 of the CL&FFP Regulations."
So this is a case where UEFA claimed a club had failed to disclose matters that made the audited accounts false. I have always considered this was in essence UEFA's case on City but found it hard to believe a CAS tribunal would be prepared to make such a serious finding.
What is interesting is that UEFA dodged the question re A47 - saying "In the case at hand, given the conclusion reached with regard to Article 50 of the CL&FFP Regulations, the Panel considers that the question whether the Appellant has breached Article 47 CL&FFP may remain undecided. The mere existence of overdue payables is indeed sufficient to declare the Appellant ineligible to the UEFA 2013/2014 Europa League."
Obviously all cases turn on the individual facts but interesting nonetheless for the geeky readers of this thread. [GULP]
"The Investigatory Chamber recommended the Adjudicatory Chamber to refuse admission of [PAE] to the UEFA 2013/2014 Europa League. According to the findings of the Investigatory Chamber, [PAE] had failed to disclose the full amount of its personal debts. In addition to the contracts registered with the HFF, the Appellant had apparently “private agreements” with at least three of its employees during the reporting period under investigation. The Investigatory Chamber considered that these agreements should have been recognized in the annual financial statements of the Club, in accordance with the “fair presentation” requirement set forth in Annex VII A (3) of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (edition 2012) (“the CL&FFP Regulations”). As a result, it was held that the Appellant had breached Article 47 of the CL&FFP Regulations."
UEFA banned PAE and amongst other things claimed "the annual financial statements of [PAE] did not contain the total amounts which had been effectively paid to its employees. It further explains: “Whether the “unofficial” part of their salary has been paid or is irrelevant: if that part has been paid – but the corresponding payments are not mentioned in the accounts – the audited financial statements are inaccurate; and if that “unofficial” part has remained unpaid – but the corresponding debts are not mentioned in the account - the audited financial statements are also inaccurate.” Accordingly, the annual financial statements of [PAE] do not truly represent the situation which amounts to a breach of Article 47 of the CL&FFP Regulations."
So this is a case where UEFA claimed a club had failed to disclose matters that made the audited accounts false. I have always considered this was in essence UEFA's case on City but found it hard to believe a CAS tribunal would be prepared to make such a serious finding.
What is interesting is that UEFA dodged the question re A47 - saying "In the case at hand, given the conclusion reached with regard to Article 50 of the CL&FFP Regulations, the Panel considers that the question whether the Appellant has breached Article 47 CL&FFP may remain undecided. The mere existence of overdue payables is indeed sufficient to declare the Appellant ineligible to the UEFA 2013/2014 Europa League."
Obviously all cases turn on the individual facts but interesting nonetheless for the geeky readers of this thread. [GULP]
Last edited: