Nurlan Ibrahimov v. Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)

At a glance

Parties

Nurlan Ibrahimov (Azerbaijan), former press officer of Qarabağ FK, v. Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)

Case no.

CAS 2020/A/7611

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal arbitration under the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2020 edition)

Treaty

None. Jurisdiction rests on Article 62(1) of the UEFA Statutes and Article R47 of the CAS Code

Tribunal

Prof. Martin Schimke (President), Mr Mark Hovell, Mr Jakub Laskowski

Sector

Football; disciplinary (racism and discrimination)

Outcome

Appeal dismissed (6 October 2022). The UEFA Appeals Body's inadmissibility decision was set aside, but the lifetime ban from all football-related activity was confirmed. The appeal against the FIFA DC Decision was inadmissible.

Amount

No damages were at stake. The published award redacts the costs orders (operative points 5–6).

The dispute

On 30 October 2020 Nurlan Ibrahimov, then press officer of Qarabağ FK, posted a Facebook statement in Azeri during the Azerbaijani–Armenian military conflict. The post called for the killing of Armenians, "their children, women, and elderly", "to the very last one". On 25 November 2020 the UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) banned him from all football-related activity for life for breaching Articles 11(2)(b) and 14(1) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (UEFA DR). It also fined the club €100,000, and FIFA extended the ban worldwide. The UEFA Appeals Body declared his appeal inadmissible because he had not himself requested the written grounds of the decision. On appeal to CAS, Ibrahimov argued that the CEDB was not impartial and had ignored mitigating factors, and that a lifetime ban was disproportionate. UEFA argued that the CAS appeal was filed late and that the CEDB decision had become final as to him. On the merits, UEFA argued that there were no mitigating factors and that the post amounted to incitement to genocide.

Key holdings

1. The appeal was timely. The appellant filed by email within the deadline and uploaded the filing to the CAS e-filing platform at the first moment access was granted (30 December 2020). Declaring the appeal inadmissible on that ground would be excessive formalism. pp. 26–28
2. The UEFA Appeals Body erred in declaring the internal appeal inadmissible. Articles 51(2) and 61(2) UEFA DR and the CEDB's "advice" note are at best ambiguous, and read contra proferentem they mean that a request for grounds by one party (here, the club) prevents the decision from becoming final for all parties. The Appeals Body decision was set aside and the Panel reviewed the CEDB decision de novo. pp. 28–31
3. The appeal against the FIFA DC Decision is inadmissible. FIFA was not a party, internal FIFA remedies had not been exhausted, and that decision states that it will follow the outcome of any appeal against the CEDB decision. pp. 31–32
4. There is no evidence that the CEDB lacked impartiality or yielded to outside pressure from the Armenian federation or social media. The strong wording of the Ethics and Disciplinary Inspector's report fits his role under the UEFA Statutes. p. 34
5. None of the appellant's points is a mitigating factor. The post is a direct call for genocide, and treating the conflict as mitigation would risk legitimising it. He made no genuine apology. A clean record is only the absence of the aggravating factor of recidivism under Article 25(2) UEFA DR, to be weighed in proportionality. The club's dismissal of him and an Azerbaijani court fine are separate measures. pp. 37–40
6. The lifetime ban is proportionate. UEFA pursues the legitimate aim of eradicating racism and discrimination from football, and the ban is suitable for that aim. Given the extreme content of the post, the lack of any apology and the risk of repetition, no less severe measure would achieve the aim. Lifetime bans have been upheld for first offences of corruption and match fixing. pp. 40–46
7. The autonomy of association gives the CEDB a margin of discretion only if it took all circumstances into account. It does not limit CAS's de novo power to find a sanction disproportionate and replace it. pp. 40–41

Procedural history

1. 30 October 2020Ibrahimov publishes the Facebook post.
2. 3 November 2020The UEFA CEDB provisionally suspends him from all football-related activity.
3. 25 November 2020The UEFA CEDB imposes a lifetime ban and asks FIFA to extend it worldwide; it also fines Qarabağ FK €100,000. The operative part is notified on 26 November.
4. 16 December 2020The UEFA Appeals Body declares Ibrahimov's appeal inadmissible. On the same day FIFA notifies the parties of the FIFA DC Decision extending the ban worldwide.
5. 25 December 2020Statement of Appeal filed with CAS by email; it is uploaded to the e-filing platform on 30 December 2020.
6. 2 March 2021Panel constituted.
7. 22 June 2021After bifurcation, the Panel holds the appeal timely. On 13 July 2021 it rejects UEFA's second request for bifurcation.
8. 8 October 2021Hearing held by videoconference.
9. 6 October 2022Award: appeal dismissed and lifetime ban confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Martin Schimke President, Court of Arbitration for Sport
• Mark Hovell Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the respondent
• Jakub Laskowski Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the claimant

For the claimant

Farid Hagverdiyev

For the respondent

UEFA · Antonio Rigozzi · Eolos Rigopoulos

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• football
• UEFA
• Qarabağ FK
• racism
• discrimination
• incitement to genocide
• social media post
• lifetime ban
• proportionality
• mitigating circumstances
• autonomy of association
• de novo review
• contra proferentem
• excessive formalism
• request for grounds
• Article 14 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations
• CAS e-filing
• FIFA worldwide extension

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