Stanislav Toncev v. Football Association of Serbia (FAS)

At a glance

Parties

Stanislav Toncev (Serbia) v. Football Association of Serbia (FAS)

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/8695

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals arbitration under the 2021 CAS Code; hearing in Lausanne

Treaty

None; appeal under Article 92 FAS Statutes

Panel

Hendrik Willem Kesler (President), Ulrich Haas, Patrick Lafranchi

Sector

Football; disciplinary sanctions

Outcome

Appeal dismissed. The six-month ban on performance of duties is confirmed (operative part 2 August 2022; reasoned award 20 April 2023).

Amount

No monetary claim. Sanction: ban on performance of duties for 6 months under Articles 54 and 23 FAS Disciplinary Code. The cost rulings are redacted in the published award.

The dispute

Stanislav Toncev is the President of FC Radnik Surdulica and a member of the Executive Board of the Serbian Super League and First League association. At half time of the Super League match between FC Radnik and FC TSC on 24 November 2021, he and his father, Novica Toncev, entered the referees' dressing room. There they questioned the referees' decisions, including a red card shown to a Radnik player. The FAS Disciplinary Committee found that this was unsporting behaviour under Article 54 FAS Disciplinary Code and banned him from performing his duties for six months. The FAS Appeals Committee confirmed the ban. Before CAS, Toncev argued that the FAS bodies lacked independence under Article 6(1) ECHR, that the procedure was flawed and the VAR audio recordings were not authentic, that his conduct was polite and was no offence, and that the sanction was disproportionate. The FAS defended both the procedure and the sanction.

Key holdings

1. CAS hears appeals de novo, so any defects in fair hearing, representation or reasoning before the FAS bodies are cured. A party has a right to only one structurally independent adjudicatory body under Article 6(1) ECHR. CAS meets that requirement, so the complaint about the FAS bodies' structural independence fails from the outset. The judges' passive stance at the hearing does not show bias, because there is no minimum level of engagement for members of a disciplinary body. ¶¶ 84–88
2. The challenges to the provisional suspension were outside the Panel's mandate, because they were not appealed within the 10-day limit of Article 92 FAS Statutes. The Disciplinary Committee was validly constituted with four members, since Article 70 FAS Statutes requires only three for a decision. It could open proceedings on the Competition Director's report or ex officio, and the charge under Article 54 was sufficiently clear. ¶¶ 80–82, 92–100
3. The VAR recordings are admissible: Article 132 FAS Disciplinary Code expressly permits video recordings as evidence. Their authenticity was proven by the referees' unanimous confirmation. The applicable standard of proof is comfortable satisfaction, having in mind the seriousness of the allegation. ¶¶ 109–117
4. Protesting at referees' decisions, in whatever manner and context, breaches Article 54; politeness affects only the sanction. The roughly four-minute conversation in an animated tone showed that the Appellant protested the decisions. Entering the dressing room at half time to influence the second half, combined with insinuations of bias, was also conduct that may harm the reputation of football. ¶¶ 120–136
5. The Panel has full de novo power to review the proportionality of a sanction; it is not limited to sanctions that are 'evidently and grossly disproportionate'. Out of courtesy, though, it should not tinker with a well-reasoned sanction. ¶¶ 142–143
6. The six-month ban is fair and proportionate. The aggravating factors were the harm to football's reputation, the Appellant's status as club President, his lack of remorse and his entry into the dressing room. They outweigh the mitigating factors: there were no threats or physical contact. The earlier FAS decisions he cited with lighter sanctions were distinguishable. ¶¶ 145–159

Procedural history

1. 24 November 2021Match between FC Radnik and FC TSC. At half time the Appellant and his father enter the referees' dressing room.
2. 2 December 2021The FAS Disciplinary Committee opens proceedings and provisionally suspends the Appellant.
3. 13 January 2022First Instance Decision: six-month ban on performance of duties under Articles 54 and 23 FAS Disciplinary Code.
4. 14 February 2022The FAS Appeals Committee dismisses the appeal; the reasoned decision is communicated on 18 February 2022.
5. 28 February 2022Statement of Appeal filed with CAS, with a request for a stay of execution.
6. 8 April 2022The President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division rejects the request for a stay.
7. 23 May 2022Panel constituted.
8. 13 July 2022Joint hearing in Lausanne with CAS 2022/A/8694 (Novica Toncev v. FAS).
9. 2 August 2022Operative part of the award issued: appeal dismissed.
10. 20 April 2023Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Hendrik Willem Kesler President, CAS Panel — appointed by the institution
• Ulrich Haas Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Patrick Lafranchi Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Mico Petkovic · Ivana Boskovic

For the respondent

Zoran Damjanovic · Marco del Fabro · Ksenija Z. Damjanovic

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• football
• unsporting behaviour
• referees' dressing room
• FAS Disciplinary Code Article 54
• FC Radnik Surdulica
• VAR recordings
• Article 6(1) ECHR
• structural independence
• de novo review
• curing procedural defects
• comfortable satisfaction
• proportionality of sanction
• ban on performance of duties
• reputation of football
• provisional suspension
• Novica Toncev

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