Patrice-Edouard Ngaїssona v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

Patrice-Edouard Ngaїssona v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Case no.

CAS 2019/A/6667

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (Articles R47 ff.)

Treaty

None. Appeal under Article 58(1) of the FIFA Statutes (2019 edition); FIFA Code of Ethics (2012 and 2018 editions)

Tribunal

Sofoklis Pilavios (President), Philippe Sands, Manfred Nan

Sector

Football; ethics discipline

Outcome

Appeal partially upheld (13 November 2023): the findings of breach and the ban of six years and eight months were confirmed, but a majority cut the fine.

Amount

Fine reduced from CHF 500,000 to CHF 100,000. FIFA costs of CHF 3,000 confirmed.

The dispute

Mr Ngaїssona was President of the Central African Republic Football Association and a member of FIFA committees. UN and FIDH reports named him as general coordinator of the CLPC, the most structured part of the Anti-Balaka movement, during the 2013–2014 civil conflict in the Central African Republic. On 7 December 2018 the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for his arrest for crimes against humanity and war crimes. FIFA then opened ethics proceedings. On 25 July 2019 the adjudicatory chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee found that he had breached the duty of neutrality (Art. 14 FCE), the ban on discrimination (Art. 22) and the protection of physical and mental integrity (Art. 23). It banned him from football for six years and eight months and fined him CHF 500,000. On appeal, he asked CAS to suspend the case pending the ICC proceedings (lis pendens) and argued that FIFA had breached the ECHR and his presumption of innocence, applied the wrong standard of proof, relied on anonymous NGO witnesses and unreliable reports, and imposed disproportionate sanctions. FIFA asked CAS to confirm the decision.

Key holdings

1. The 2018 FCE governs the substance under its Article 3. Its maximum sanctions are not more severe than those under the 2012 FCE, and Article 11 now limits sanctions for multiple breaches, which favours the appellant. Procedural matters are also governed by the 2018 FCE. ¶¶ 93–100
2. The CAS de novo appeal cures any procedural violations at FIFA level. The ECHR does not apply to FIFA's disciplinary bodies, which are not "tribunals", and Article 6(1) ECHR was in any event not breached. Article 6(2) ECHR applies only to criminal proceedings. ¶¶ 104–107, 124, 134
3. The standard of proof is comfortable satisfaction under Article 48 of the 2018 FCE. The seriousness of the allegations cannot raise it to beyond reasonable doubt. Parallel ICC criminal proceedings are no ground to suspend the disciplinary case. ¶¶ 109–112, 141
4. The UN Panel of Experts reports and the FIDH Report are a credible and reliable basis for findings of fact. The anonymous persons interviewed by FIDH were not witnesses under Article 44 of the FCE. The appellant offered no contrary evidence. The Panel was comfortably satisfied that, from December 2013 to December 2014, he was general coordinator of the CLPC and a leading political figure of the Anti-Balaka. ¶¶ 146–147, 185–192
5. Breaches of Article 23(1) and (3), Article 22(1) and Article 14(1) of the 2018 FCE confirmed. Acting intentionally or by omission as leader of the Anti-Balaka, he was involved in violence aimed at people because of their religion and political opinion. Apart from signing the Brazzaville cessation-of-hostilities agreement of 23 July 2014, he never acted to stop or denounce that violence, and he took sides in the political and military struggle. ¶¶ 205–218
6. The ban of six years and eight months is justified. The Panel said a lifetime ban would have been appropriate if the rules had allowed it. It criticised FIFA for taking no action for more than four years, until the ICC warrant. ¶¶ 227–228
7. By majority, a fine is justified, but CHF 500,000 is disproportionate and is reduced to CHF 100,000. There was no evidence of financial gain or of financial loss to FIFA, and FIFA did not contest the appellant's indigence. ¶¶ 229–233; operative part

Procedural history

1. 1 April 2019FIFA's investigatory chamber opens formal investigation proceedings under the 2012 FCE.
2. 25 July 2019After a hearing in Zurich, the adjudicatory chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee decides on the ban and the CHF 500,000 fine. The reasoned decision is communicated on 28 November 2019.
3. 19 December 2019Statement of appeal filed with CAS.
4. 9 January 2020CAS denies the request to suspend the appeal pending the ICC proceedings.
5. 25 February 2020Benoît Pasquier recuses himself after the appellant's challenge. Manfred Nan is nominated in his place on 2 March 2020.
6. 20 October 2022Anita L. DeFrantz steps down for health reasons. Philippe Sands is nominated in her place (notified 24 October 2022).
7. 10 February 2023Hearing at CAS in Lausanne, with UN expert Aurélien Llorca testifying.
8. 13 November 2023Award: appeal partially upheld and fine reduced to CHF 100,000.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Sofoklis Pilavios President, CAS Panel
• Philippe Sands Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the claimant (replaced Anita L. DeFrantz in October 2022)
• Manfred Nan Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the respondent (replaced Benoît Pasquier on 2 March 2020)

For the claimant

Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops · C.J. Knoops-Hamburger · Chiara Guidici

For the respondent

FIFA

Experts

Aurélien Llorca (respondent)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• FIFA Code of Ethics
• duty of neutrality
• discrimination
• protection of physical and mental integrity
• Anti-Balaka
• Central African Republic
• International Criminal Court
• comfortable satisfaction
• lis pendens
• parallel criminal proceedings
• presumption of innocence
• ECHR Article 6
• tempus regit actum
• lex mitior
• de novo review
• proportionality of sanctions
• anonymous witnesses
• football ban

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