Nella Joseph v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

Nella Joseph (Haiti) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Case no.

CAS 2021/A/8245

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (Articles R47 ff.); FIFA Code of Ethics, 2020 edition; Swiss law applied subsidiarily

Tribunal

Patrick Grandjean (President), Pierre Muller, Alexis Schoeb

Sector

Football; ethics and safeguarding of players

Outcome

Appeal admissible and upheld (4 December 2024). The FIFA Adjudicatory Chamber's decision of 23 April 2021 finding a breach of Article 23 of the FIFA Code of Ethics was annulled.

Amount

The annulled FIFA decision had imposed a ten-year ban from all football-related activity, a fine of CHF 20,000 and procedural costs of CHF 1,000. The costs provisions of the award (operative ¶¶ 4–5) are redacted in the published version.

The dispute

Nella Joseph, a Haitian national, worked from 2011 for the Haitian Football Federation (FHF) as an official supervising the women's U20 team at the GOAL Centre in Croix-des-Bouquets. After articles in The Guardian in 2020 alleged that FHF president Yves Jean-Bart had sexually abused young players, and that Ms Joseph had pressured players to submit to him, the FIFA Ethics Committee investigated. On 23 April 2021 its Adjudicatory Chamber found that she had breached Article 23 of the FIFA Code of Ethics by acting as an intermediary and coercing players. It banned her for ten years and fined her CHF 20,000. All notices had been sent only through the FHF, and she took part in none of the proceedings. On appeal she argued that her right to be heard had been violated, that anonymised testimony could not be relied on, that FIFA bore the burden of proof, and that her case must fall with Jean-Bart's, whose sanction CAS had annulled in CAS 2021/A/7661. FIFA argued that her own pressure on players breached Article 23 regardless of what Jean-Bart did, that she had a duty to cooperate in establishing the facts, and that the evidence against her was consistent.

Key holdings

1. Joseph's right to be heard was not respected before FIFA: no document was served on her directly before 28 July 2021, and the Adjudicatory Chamber decided without her taking part in the evidence. The violation was cured because CAS has full power of review and she had access to the whole file and was represented by counsel before CAS. Award ¶¶ 123–126
2. The Panel rightly rejected her requests for further evidence. These included the non-anonymised file and witness list of CAS 2021/A/7661 and a Haitian lawyer. The refusal protected potential witnesses and their relatives, the requests were thinly supported, and the measures proved unnecessary given the outcome. A public hearing was refused under Article R57 to protect the privacy of alleged victims who may be minors, since witnesses in the Jean-Bart case had been identified by social media and radio despite anonymity measures. Award ¶¶ 130–141
3. Under Article 49 of the Code of Ethics the burden of proof lies on the Ethics Committee. The accused has no general duty to cooperate where evidence is hard to obtain, and by analogy with in dubio pro reo a finding of guilt cannot rest mainly on the accused's silence. The standard is "comfortable satisfaction" under Article 48, and it is not raised because the charges are serious. Award ¶¶ 146–152
4. Threats and coercion under Article 23(4), read with Articles 180 and 181 of the Swiss Criminal Code, are offences in their own right. They do not depend on a later offence, so Joseph could in principle be sanctioned despite Jean-Bart's acquittal. The only charge still pursued, however, was pressuring players to go to Jean-Bart, and FIFA did not prove any such pressure. Award ¶¶ 159–164
5. FIFA relied only on the same investigation file that the CAS 2021/A/7661 panel had found unconvincing. It offered no new evidence and did not explain why that panel had erred. FIFA's claim that Joseph had accepted the witness statements by not contesting them was rejected, because she had denied the allegations both before the investigators and in a signed statement. Award ¶¶ 169–171
6. The evidence against Joseph was hearsay. Witness A did not witness the facts and was of doubtful credibility, Witness B admitted relying on rumours, and Witnesses C and D could not have heard the alleged conversations. Antoine Doret made one bare statement, and the FIFPRO letters were indirect summaries, one of which said it was not substantive evidence. No alleged victim said she had been directly targeted. Substantial doubt remained, so no breach of Article 23 was established and the decision was annulled. Award ¶¶ 174–178; operative part

Procedural history

1. 19 August 2020The FIFA Ethics Committee's Investigatory Chamber opens an investigation against Joseph and provisionally suspends her for 90 days. The suspension is extended on 27 November 2020.
2. 23 April 2021The FIFA Adjudicatory Chamber finds a breach of Article 23 and imposes a ten-year ban, a fine of CHF 20,000 and costs of CHF 1,000. The reasoned decision is sent through the FHF on 3 May 2021.
3. 28 July 2021FIFA informs Joseph directly of the proceedings and of the decision.
4. 18 August 2021Joseph files her statement of appeal with CAS. Legal aid with pro bono counsel is granted on 15 October 2021.
5. 5 May 2022The Panel is constituted: Patrick Grandjean (President), Pierre Muller and Alexis Schoeb.
6. 22 September and 12 October 2022Hearing in Lausanne limited to admissibility.
7. 7 February 2023Preliminary award: the appeal is admissible.
8. 28 March 2023Proceedings suspended pending FIFA's challenge before the Swiss Federal Tribunal to the award in CAS 2021/A/7661 (Jean-Bart). The Tribunal rejects that challenge on 28 June 2023 (4A_170/2023).
9. 30 May 2024Hearing on the merits, held in camera in Lausanne.
10. 4 December 2024Award: the appeal is upheld and the FIFA decision annulled.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Patrick Grandjean President, Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel
• Pierre Muller Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Alexis Schoeb Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Philippe Vladimir Boss · Luca Ruggiero

For the respondent

FIFA Litigation Department

Experts

Thomas Probst (respondent)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• FIFA Code of Ethics
• Article 23
• protection of physical and mental integrity
• sexual abuse
• safeguarding
• Haiti
• Haitian Football Federation
• Yves Jean-Bart
• right to be heard
• notification through national federation
• public hearing
• anonymous witnesses
• burden of proof
• in dubio pro reo
• comfortable satisfaction
• hearsay evidence
• FIFPRO
• threats and coercion

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