Edgars Gauracs v. Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)

At a glance

Parties

Edgars Gauračs (Latvia) v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/8651

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal arbitration under the CAS Code (2020 edition); UEFA Disciplinary Regulations; Swiss law applies subsidiarily

Treaty

None. Jurisdiction rests on Article 62(1) of the UEFA Statutes.

Panel

Prof. Martin Schimke (President), Yasna Stavreva, Jacopo Tognon

Sector

Football; match-fixing discipline

Outcome

Appeal partially upheld. A breach of Article 12(2)(e) with Article 12(1) UEFA DR was found for Match 1 only, and the three-year ban was reduced to 15 months (operative part 21 September 2022; reasoned award 14 June 2023).

Amount

No monetary claim. The ban went from 10 years (UEFA CEDB) to 3 years (UEFA Appeals Body) to 15 months (CAS), counted from 19 October 2021. The published text omits the costs paragraphs.

The dispute

Edgars Gauračs is a former Latvian international player and General Director of FK Spartaks Jurmala. On 9 July 2018 his former teammate, Dmitry Aydov, offered him between €300,000 and €500,000 to make sure the club lost a Champions League qualifier against FK Crvena Zvezda (11 July 2018) by two goals. Gauračs reported the offer to the club President and the UEFA Match Delegate only on the day of the match, and named Aydov only on 26 July 2018. On the day of the return leg (17 July 2018) he received a voice message from Ruslan Bagirovs linking margins of defeat to sums of €25,000–50,000. The UEFA CEDB banned him for ten years for accepting a match-fixing offer and for failing to report. The UEFA Appeals Body dropped the acceptance charge but kept the reporting breaches for both matches and imposed a three-year ban. On appeal to CAS, Gauračs argued that UEFA breached Article 6 ECHR, estoppel and the ultra vires rule, that Article 12 UEFA DR was too vague to sanction him, that he had reported promptly as a whistle-blower, that the Bagirovs message was a betting overview, and that the sanction was disproportionate.

Key holdings

1. Criminal-law guarantees of Article 6 ECHR, including in dubio pro reo and the privilege against self-incrimination, do not in principle apply to disciplinary proceedings of private associations. In any event UEFA did not breach them. There was also no estoppel or ultra vires action: the delays were partly explained by COVID-19, the investigation and the translations, and Article 12(1) was referred to in the CEDB decision and the investigator's report. ¶¶ 135–146
2. UEFA's updated Sportradar and Starlizard reports were admitted under Article R57(3) of the CAS Code, because UEFA did not act abusively. The standard of proof is comfortable satisfaction, and the burden lies on UEFA. Article 12 UEFA DR is a sufficient regulatory basis for a sanction. ¶¶ 109–111, 147, 154
3. Match 1: reporting the approach two days later, about five hours before kick-off, met the 'immediately' requirement in the circumstances. These included genuine fear of retaliation, the absence of the club owner and the Appellant's new role. UEFA must bear the consequences of not setting a fixed time limit (contra proferentem). Article 12(2)(d) does not require the caller's name to be disclosed, so it was not breached. ¶¶ 172–179, 183
4. Withholding Aydov's name for 17 days breached Article 12(2)(e), a catch-all clause, together with the duty to cooperate fully in Article 12(1). The Panel called this breach minor. Deleting the messaging app was not a separate violation. ¶¶ 184–189
5. Match 2: by majority, UEFA did not prove to comfortable satisfaction that the Bagirovs message was a match-fixing approach. The Panel relied on the Appellant's conduct, the limits of the unsigned expert reports, the acquittal of Bagirovs in Latvia and the relationship between the two men. In the alternative, the Appellant was not shown to have been aware of reportable behaviour. ¶¶ 197–223
6. The three-year ban was grossly disproportionate. The incomplete information could not also count as an aggravating factor. Safety fears, his assistance against match-fixing, his full cooperation and his inexperience were mitigating factors. With reference to the 1.5-year 'standard sanction' for passive match-fixing, the ban was reduced to 15 months from 19 October 2021. ¶¶ 229–247; operative part

Procedural history

1. 9–17 July 2018Match-fixing approach before Match 1 (11 July); Bagirovs voice message on the day of Match 2 (17 July).
2. 21 October 2019Latvian police terminate the criminal proceedings against Gauračs.
3. 18 October 2021UEFA CEDB imposes a ten-year ban under Articles 12(2)(a), (d) and (e) UEFA DR.
4. 7 February 2022UEFA Appeals Body partially upholds his appeal and reduces the ban to three years (grounds notified 7 March 2022).
5. 4 March 2022The CAS Deputy Division President rejects the request for a stay of execution.
6. 7 March 2022Statement of Appeal filed with CAS.
7. 19 May 2022The ICAS Challenge Commission rejects the challenge to Prof. Schimke; the Panel is constituted.
8. 14 July 2022Hearing held by videoconference.
9. 21 September 2022Operative part issued: appeal partially upheld, ban reduced to 15 months.
10. 14 June 2023Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Martin Schimke President, CAS Panel — appointed by the institution (challenge rejected)
• Yasna Stavreva Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Jacopo Tognon Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the respondent (late objection at the hearing rejected)

For the claimant

Georgi Gradev · Marton Kiss

For the respondent

UEFA · Antonio Rigozzi · Brianna Quinn

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• match-fixing
• duty to report
• Article 12 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations
• immediately
• comfortable satisfaction
• Article 6 ECHR
• in dubio pro reo
• self-incrimination
• estoppel
• ultra vires
• post-facto evidence
• Sportradar
• Starlizard
• Betfair
• proportionality of sanction
• passive match-fixing
• FK Spartaks Jurmala
• Champions League

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.