Yves Jean-Bart v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

Yves Jean-Bart (Haiti), President of the Fédération Haïtienne de Football, v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Case no.

CAS 2021/A/7661

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (Articles R47–R58); seat Lausanne; language French

Treaty

None. Appeal under Articles 56–57 of the FIFA Statutes and Article 82 of the FIFA Code of Ethics; FIFA Code of Ethics 2020 applied, Swiss law subsidiarily

Tribunal

Alain Zahlan de Cayetti (President), Pierre Muller, Luigi Fumagalli

Sector

Football; sports governance; ethics discipline

Outcome

Appeal upheld (14 February 2023). The FIFA Ethics Committee decision of 18 November 2020 is annulled and no sanction is imposed.

Amount

FIFA had imposed a lifetime ban from all football-related activity, a fine of CHF 1,000,000 and procedural costs of CHF 3,000. All were annulled. The costs rulings of the CAS award (operative points 3 and 4) are redacted in the published text.

The dispute

Yves Jean-Bart had been President of the Haitian Football Federation (FHF) since 2000. In April 2020 a YouTube video by Romain Molina and articles in The Guardian accused him of sexually abusing young female players at the national training centre at Croix-des-Bouquets (the "Camp Nou"). FIFA's Ethics Committee investigated and provisionally suspended him. On 18 November 2020 its adjudicatory chamber found that he had breached Article 23 (protection of physical and mental integrity) and Article 25 (abuse of position) of the FIFA Code of Ethics for the period 2014–2020. It banned him from football for life and fined him CHF 1,000,000. On appeal to CAS, Jean-Bart challenged the anonymisation of FIFA's witnesses and the application of the 2020 Code to undated facts. He also argued that FIFA had not met its burden of proof and that the sanctions were disproportionate. FIFA relied on two alleged victims, several protected witnesses, and reports by FIFPRO, Human Rights Watch and others, and argued that the evidence, taken together, met the comfortable-satisfaction standard.

Key holdings

1. Applying the FIFA Code of Ethics 2020 did not breach the principles of non-retroactivity or legality. Earlier editions of the Code (2012, 2018 and 2019) contained similar provisions. The Article 23 allegations (10-year limitation period) and the Article 25 allegations (5-year period, running from the provisional suspension of 25 May 2020) were not time-barred. ¶¶ 143–151
2. Anonymising and redacting witness evidence is not in itself contrary to Article 6 ECHR or Article 29(2) of the Swiss Constitution. It is justified where the witness credibly shows a concrete risk of reprisals and safeguards are in place. Here the safeguards were: identity checked by CAS counsel, testimony given from a secret location without video and with a distorted voice, and cross-examination questions screened by the Panel in advance. ¶¶ 155–168
3. The burden of proof lies on FIFA (Article 49 FCE). The standard is comfortable satisfaction (Article 48 FCE). The Panel refused to raise the standard to near proof beyond reasonable doubt, because the federation's rules specifically set the standard. The Panel reviews the case de novo. ¶¶ 178–180
4. The FIFPRO letter of 13 August 2020 and the Human Rights Watch article of 14 August 2020 are not expert reports. They rest on unconfirmed oral accounts and rumours, and nothing else in the evidence corroborated them. FIFA did not call their authors as witnesses. ¶¶ 211–217
5. No breach of Article 23 was established. An anonymous statement cannot on its own support a conviction. The accounts of the victims and witnesses were inconsistent with each other and largely hearsay. Many witnesses said players at Aquin were housed in a religious school, not a hotel. Jean-Bart was absent from the 2014 U15 match in the Cayman Islands. The passports were held in the office of Fenelus Guerrier. ¶¶ 224–228
6. No breach of Article 25 was established. Apart from Victims A and B, no witness reported intimidation or promises in exchange for sex. Holding players' passports may be a questionable practice, but no personal advantage to Jean-Bart was shown. ¶¶ 231–234
7. Because no violation was established, no sanction is imposed. The appeal is upheld, the FIFA decision of 18 November 2020 is annulled, and all other requests are dismissed. ¶ 238; operative part

Procedural history

1. 11 May 2020The FIFA Ethics Committee's investigatory chamber opens formal proceedings against Jean-Bart under Articles 13, 23 and 25 FCE 2018.
2. 25 May 2020The chair of the investigatory chamber provisionally suspends Jean-Bart for 90 days. The chair of the adjudicatory chamber extends the suspension by a further 90 days on 19 August 2020.
3. 14 October 2020The investigatory chamber issues its final report finding breaches of Articles 13, 23 and 25 FCE.
4. 16 November 2020The Court of First Instance of Croix-des-Bouquets (Haiti) closes the criminal case against Jean-Bart with no further action (non-lieu).
5. 18 November 2020The adjudicatory chamber holds a hearing and decides: lifetime ban and fine of CHF 1,000,000. The operative part is notified on 20 November 2020 and the reasoned decision on 12 January 2021.
6. 27 January 2021Jean-Bart files his statement of appeal with CAS.
7. 23 March 2021The Panel is constituted.
8. 23–25 March 2022Hearing at CAS in Lausanne. Protected witnesses testify with distorted voices.
9. 14 February 2023Award: appeal upheld and FIFA decision annulled.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Alain Zahlan de Cayetti President, Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel
• Pierre Muller Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Luigi Fumagalli Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Libra Law SA · Munitio Cabinet d'avocats · Elie Elkaim

For the respondent

FIFA Litigation Department

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• FIFA Code of Ethics
• Haitian Football Federation
• sexual abuse allegations
• abuse of position
• protection of physical and mental integrity
• lifetime ban
• anonymous witnesses
• protected witnesses
• voice distortion
• right to be heard
• Article 6 ECHR
• comfortable satisfaction
• burden of proof
• hearsay
• FIFPRO
• Human Rights Watch
• non-retroactivity
• women's football

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