Switzerland: Meeting Sporting Deadlines
By Sara Botti, Valoni Attorneys at Law, Zurich, Switzerland
The CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) Appeal Case (the Case) brought by the Swiss football club, Associazione Calcio Bellinzona (ACB), against the decision of the Appeals Tribunal of the Swiss Football League (SFL) (CAS 2024/A/11189) illustrates the need for sanctions to be applied on a case-by-case basis and sporting deadlines to be strictly observed.
The Case concerned an alleged breach by ACB of the duty of disclosure set out in Article 8(5) of the SFL Licensing Regulations (the Regulations). Specifically, ACB submitted, with a delay, the required confirmation by AXA Insurance attesting to the receipt of payment of the advance instalment for LAINF contributions (Swiss Federal Act on Accident Insurance). As a result of this formal breach, the Appeals Tribunal had applied the sanction automatically provided for in Article 26(3) of the Regulations, that is, a deduction of three points from the League standings.
The Regulations are designed to ensure the transparency and economic-administrative sustainability of professional football clubs in Switzerland. Article 8(5) imposes a general obligation on them to provide documentation that is accurate, complete, and, importantly, submitted within the prescribed deadlines. Compliance with such obligations is essential to maintain competitive fairness and uphold the credibility of the system.
Article 26(3) of the Regulations provides that, in the event of a breach of Article 8(5), a minimum sanction may be imposed, including the deduction of league points. The literal wording of the provision has given rise, in practice, to an automatic and rigid interpretation of the sanction, often applied without any qualitative assessment of the actual offending conduct.
However, such a strict interpretation is difficult to reconcile with the general principles of sports law—including proportionality, culpability, and individualisation of sanctions—which are widely recognised in the CAS jurisprudence and have also been incorporated into domestic practice.
In the Case, ACB submitted the confirmation of receipt of the LAINF payment by AXA Insurance after the deadline established in the Regulations. However, the documentation was accurate and complete, and the breach was merely of a temporal nature.
The SFL Appeals Tribunal, whilst acknowledging the absence of any fraudulent intent or evasive purpose, applied the minimum sanction, considering that it must automatically apply under the Regulations. ACB lodged an appeal, challenging both the existence of a breach and, in the alternative, the proportionality of the sanction imposed.
The Sole CAS Arbitrator, after considering the evidence, confirmed the existence of a breach of Article 8(5) of the Regulations, as the AXA confirmation was submitted late. Nevertheless, he held that the sanction provided for in Article 26(3) should not be applied in a mechanical or generalised manner but instead must be subject to assessment in the light of the principles of proportionality and individualisation of disciplinary measures, that is on a case-by-case basis.
In support of his decision, the CAS Arbitrator referred to the well-established principle in sports disciplinary matters that a sanction must be proportionate to the gravity of the offending conduct, taking into account both its subjective and objective elements. A purely formal violation, absent intent, recurrence, or concrete prejudicial effects on the licensing system, does not justify the automatic imposition of a sanction as severe as a points deduction.
Amongst the mitigating circumstances considered, the CAS Arbitrator placed particular importance on the following:
- the absence of fraudulent intent by the appellant club;
- the substantive correctness and completeness of the documentation submitted;
- the ACB cooperative and transparent conduct during the proceedings; and
- the lack of any negative repercussions on the regular conduct of the championship.
Based on this balancing exercise, the CAS Appeal, on 24 April 2025, was partially upheld, the three-points deduction being replaced with a pecuniary fine of Sw.Frs. 30,000 (around €32,170). This was considered to be appropriate and also tool into account that ACB had missed a filing deadline and fined on a previous occasion.
This decision also represents an important reaffirmation of the discretionary role of sports’ adjudicators, who should not be bound by automatic sanctioning mechanisms in the absence of specific and non-derogable provisions.
In other words, the Case confirms the importance of a case-by-case approach, based on the facts and the applicable law.
As mentioned, the Case also illustrates the need for sports clubs to take seriously and strictly adhere to sporting deadlines and not to treat them in a cavalier manner!
Sara Botti may be contacted by e-mail at ‘
