SK Slovan Bratislava v. KI Klaksvik, Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6. Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties’ written submissions and the CAS file. References to additional facts and allegations found in the Parties’ written submissions, pleadings, and evidence will be made, where relevant, in connection with the legal analysis that follows. While the Sole Arbitrator has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments, and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, he refers in his award only to the submissions and evidence he deems necessary to explain its reasoning.

A. Background facts

7. On 15 July 2020, via Circular Letter No. 53/2020, the UEFA administration notified its member associations, including the SFZ and the FSF, and their clubs of the implementation of the socalled “UEFA Return to Play Protocol” (the “Protocol”). The Protocol, which was approved by the UEFA Executive Committee on 9 July 2020, is a set of rules addressing measures concerning the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe in relation to UEFA club competitions. Particularly, it “sets out the framework of medical, sanitary and hygiene procedures together with the operational protocols that are to be applied when staging UEFA competition matches”.

8. On 3 August 2020, via Circular Letter No. 58/2020, the UEFA administration informed its member associations and clubs of the immediate introduction of Annex I to the Regulations of the UEFA Champions League 2020/2021 Season (“Annex I to the UCLR”). Annex I to the UCLR, which was approved by the UEFA Executive Committee on 3 August 2020, sets out “special rules applicable to the qualifying phase and play-offs due to COVID-19”.

9. The UEFA Champions League first qualification match between KÍ Klaksvík and ŠK Slovan Bratislava was scheduled for 19 August 2020 at 18:00 CET in Klaksvík, Faroe Islands (the “Match”). On 17 August 2020, the delegation of ŠK Slovan Bratislava (“First Delegation”) travelled to the Faroe Islands. Upon arrival at the airport the whole delegation had to undergo mandatory COVID-19 testing provided for by local legislation since 27 June 2020.

10. On 18 August 2020, the COVID-19 test of the team’s physical therapist returned a positive result. As a consequence, the Faroese health authorities decided to quarantine the entire First Delegation for a period of 14 days (“First Quarantine Decision”). The First Quarantine Decision also offered the opportunity for the team and officials of ŠK Slovan Bratislava to leave the Faroe Islands on the charted flight they had arrived on. The ŠK Slovan Bratislava was notified of the First Quarantine Decision on the same day.

(operative part of 4 September 2020)

11. On 19 August 2020, ŠK Slovan Bratislava requested UEFA to postpone the Match to 21 August 2020 in order for it to provide a list of new players eligible to play the Match in accordance with the deadline stated in Annex I.3.1 to the UCLR. The Match was subsequently rescheduled by UEFA to 21 August 2020 at 18:00 CET.

12. On 20 August 2020, the second delegation of ŠK Slovan Bratislava (“Second Delegation”) arrived in the Faroe Island. All members of the Second Delegation were tested by the local authorities upon their arrival.

13. On the same date, the Faroese health informed the Appellant that one of its players returned a positive COVID-19 test result. The Faroese authorities ordered that the entire Second Delegation had to be quarantined for two weeks or until their departure from the Faroe Islands via charted flight (“Second Quarantine Decision”). The Faroese health authorities, however, offered ŠK Slovan Bratislava the possibility of a retest of the player that had tested positive. Furthermore, they advised the Appellant that they would reassess the matter, if the player returned a negative COVID-10 result.

14. On 21 August 2020, the Faroese authorities notified the club that the retest of the player was also positive for COVID-19 and, thus, confirmed its Second Quarantine Decision of 20 August 2020. As a consequence, the rescheduled Match could not be played.

15. On the same date, ŠK Slovan Bratislava sent a letter to UEFA in which it – inter alia – stated that “the home team KÍ failed to comply with the Paragraph I.1.2 and I.1.3 of the Annex I of the Regulations, as the quarantine conditions were not known to us at the time of the draw […] there still is enough time for Q1 match KÍ – Slovan to be rescheduled, played either in neutral stadium or Bratislava and decided by sporting principles and fair-play – on the pitch”.

B. Proceedings before UEFA’s Judicial Bodies

16. On 21 August 2020, ŠK Slovan Bratislava was notified that UEFA had initiated formal disciplinary proceedings against it. The club was given a deadline to submit its statements in relation to the disciplinary proceeding by 24 August 2020.

17. On 24 August 2020, the chairman of the UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (“CEDB”) referred the case to the Appeals Body.

18. On the same date, the Appeals Body rendered the Appealed Decision, which provides the following operative part:

“To declare the 2020/21 UEFA Champions League first qualifying round match between KÍ Klaksvík and ŠK Slovan Bratislava, that was initially scheduled to be played on 19 August 2020, as forfeited by ŠK Slovan Bratislava, who is therefore deemed to have lost the match 3-0 in accordance with Annex I.2.1 to the Regulations of the UEFA Champions League (2020/21 Season)”.

19. Still on the same date, the UEFA notified ŠK Slovan Bratislava the grounds of the Appealed

(operative part of 4 September 2020)

Decision. Therein, the Appeals Body held – inter alia – as follows:

➢ “[…] pursuant to Articles 30(3)(a) and 30(4) DR [UEFA Disciplinary Regulations], and given that the present case needs to be addressed urgently due to its direct impact on the ongoing 2020/21 UEFA Champions League competition, as well as on the 2020/21 UEFA Europa League competition, the chairman of the Appeals Body is competent to deal with this case as judge sitting alone.

➢ It follows that the Appeals Body has competence to decide on the present proceedings.

➢ […] in application of Annex I.2.1, the Appeals Body recalls that upon the request of the Club, the Match was rescheduled to 21 August 2020 at 18:00 CET in order to provide a list of new eligible players to play the Match.

➢ However, the Appeals Body recalls that on 20 August 2020, the Club was informed that a player from this second group returned a positive COVID-19 test result, resulting in the second group of the Club’s players and officials being placed in mandatory quarantine for two weeks by the Faroese authorities […]. Furthermore, the Appeals Body notes that further testing of the player of 21 August 2020 confirmed the positive COVID-19 test from the previous day.

➢ In this respect, the Appeals Body notes that it was impossible for the rescheduled Match to take place by the 21 August 2020 deadline applicable for the first qualifying round of 2020/21 UCL season.

➢ Due to the fact that the Match could not take place within the 21 August 2020 deadline, and by virtue of Annex I.2.1, which states that ‘[t]he club that cannot play the match will be held responsible for the match not taking place […]’, the Appeals Body is comfortable satisfied that the Club shall be held responsible for the Match not taking place”.

IV. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

20. On 25 August 2020, the Appellant filed its Statement of Appeal with the CAS against UEFA, KÍ Klaksvík and BSC Young Boys against the Appealed Decision of 24 August 2020 in accordance with Article R47 et seq. of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (the “CAS Code”). In addition, the Appellant further requested to submit the appeal to a sole arbitrator and proposed the appointment of Mr Ulrich Haas. Furthermore, the Appellant requested an expedited proceeding in accordance with Article R52 para. 4 of the CAS Code without a hearing. In this respect, the Appellant proposed the following expedited procedural calendar:

➢ 28 August 2020: The Appellant files its Appeal Brief.

➢ 2 September 2020: The Respondents submit their respective Answers.

➢ The Parties waive a hearing in this matter (without prejudice of the Sole Arbitrator’s final decision on the issue).

➢ 4 September 2020: CAS issues the operative part of the award by 16:00 CET.

(operative part of 4 September 2020)

21. On the same date, the Appellant requested urgent provisional measures pursuant to Article R37 of the CAS Code. The Appellant filed – inter alia – the following requests for provisional relief:

“1. Stay of execution of the decision passed on 24 August 2020 by the Chairman of the UEFA Appeals Body as a judge sitting alone in case 33732 - UCL - 2020/21, by means of which UEFA declared the 2020/21 UEFA Champions League first qualifying round match between KÍ Klaksvík and ŠK Slovan Bratislava as forfeited by ŠK Slovan Bratislava, who was therefore deemed to have lost the match 3-0 in accordance with Annex I.2.1 to the Regulations of the UEFA Champions League (2020/21 Season).

2. Postpone or reschedule or order UEFA to postpone or reschedule the 2020/2021 UEFA Champions League second qualifying round match between BSC Young Boys and KÍ Klaksvík that is scheduled to be played on 26 August 2020 at 20:15 CET in Bern, Switzerland, pending the final decision of the Sole Arbitrator, but, in any case, not later than 11 September 2020”.

22. Still on same date, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s Statement of Appeal. The CAS Court Office invited the Respondents to inform the CAS Court Office by 26 August 2020 (a) whether they agree to the expedited procedural calendar proposed by the Appellant and (b) whether they agree to submit the case to a sole arbitrator, and if so, to the appointment of Mr Ulrich Haas as the sole arbitrator.

23. On 26 August 2020, the CAS Deputy Division President dismissed the Appellant’s requests for provisional measures.

24. On the same date, the First Respondent agreed to the appointment of Mr Ulrich Haas acting as a sole arbitrator in this procedure. The First Respondent further informed the CAS that it agrees, in principle, to the expedited procedural calendar, subject to the modification that the Appeal Brief shall be submitted by 28 August 2020 at 11:00 CET.

25. Also, on the same date, the CAS Court Office confirmed the modified expedited procedural calendar, to which the Second Respondent and BSC Young Boys had consented in advance.

26. Still on the same date, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the Deputy Division President had decided to appoint Mr Ulrich Haas as the Sole Arbitrator in this matter, subject to the Parties’ right to challenge the appointment.

27. On 27 August 2020, the Appellant withdrew its appeal against BSC Young Boys.

28. On the same date, the CAS Court Office confirmed the appointment of Mr Ulrich Haas acting as sole arbitrator (“Sole Arbitrator”).

29. On 28 August 2020, the Appellant filed its Appeal Brief in accordance with Article R51 of the CAS Code.

30. On 1 September 2020, the Second Respondent filed its Answer in accordance with Article R55 of the CAS Code.

(operative part of 4 September 2020)

31. On 2 September 2020, the First Respondent filed its Answer in accordance with Article R55 of the CAS Code.

32. On 3 September 2020, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the Sole Arbitrator considered himself sufficiently well informed based on the Parties’ written submissions and therefore did not consider it necessary to hold a hearing in this matter.

33. On 4 September 2020, the Sole Arbitrator issued the operative part of the award that was notified to the Parties.

V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

34. This section of the award does not contain an exhaustive list of the Parties’ contentions, its aim being to provide a summary of the substance of the Parties’ main arguments. In considering and deciding upon the Parties’ claims in this Award, the Sole Arbitrator has accounted for and carefully considered all of the submissions made and evidence adduced by the Parties, including allegations and arguments not mentioned in this section of the Award or in the discussion of the claims below.

A. The Appellant’s Position

35. In its Appeal Brief dated 28 August 2020, the Appellant filed the following prayers for relief:

“1. To set aside and annul the decision passed on 24 August 2020 by the Chairman of the Appeals Body as a judge sitting alone in case 33732 - UCL - 2020/21.

2. To order UEFA (i) to immediately reintegrate ŠK Slovan Bratislava into the 2020/2021 UEFA Champions League (without any sporting or financial prejudice to ŠK Slovan Bratislava’s rights and legitimate interests) and (ii) to adopt all measures necessary for that purpose.

3. Order the Respondents (in particular, UEFA) to bear all costs incurred with the present procedure at CAS.

4. Order the Respondent (in particular, UEFA) to pay ŠK Slovan Bratislava a contribution towards its legal and other costs of EUR 6,000”.

36. The Appellant’s submissions in support of its appeal against the Decision of the Appeals Body may, in essence, be summarised as follows:

i. Wrongful Notifications

37. The Appellant submits that the UEFA in its correspondence with the Appellant did not liaise with its main contact person, i.e. with Mr Tomas Cho:

(operative part of 4 September 2020)

(a) When informing the Appellant on 21 August 2020 about the opening of disciplinary proceedings, UEFA did not contact Mr Tomas Cho, but Mr Martin Kuran instead. The latter is – according to the Appellant – not its main, but only secondary contact person. Mr Martin Kuran was in quarantine for two weeks starting on 17 March 2020 and had no access to his business emails (kuran@skslovan.com).

(b) UEFA again contacted Mr Kuran (instead of Mr Cho) when the chairman of the CEDB decided to refer the case to the Appeals Body on 24 August 2020.

ii. Lack of jurisdiction of the Appeals Body

38. The Appellant submits that the chairman of the Appeals Body lacked competence to render the Appealed Decision and that therefore the Appealed Decision must be set aside. In particular, the Appellant finds that:

(a) The 2019 UEFA Disciplinary Rules (“UEFA DR”) provide that urgent matters may be referred to the Appeals Body by the CEDB, more specifically to the chairman of the Appeals Body sitting as a single judge. However, the UEFA DR are not applicable in the case at hand, because they are trumped by the lex specialis contained in Annex I.2.1 to the UCLR.

(b) Annex I.2.1 to the UCLR provides – in its pertinent parts – that “the club that cannot play the match will be held responsible for the match not taking place and the match will be declared by the UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body to be forfeited […]”. The provision clearly establishes the (sole) competence of the CEDB. This follows from the rules of law applicable to the interpretation of statutes and regulations of sports entities and, more particularly, from the jurisprudence of the CAS and the Swiss Federal Tribunal (“SFT”). Consequently, Annex I.2.1 prevails over any jurisdictional rules contained in the UEFA DR in disputes concerning the forfeiture of football matches of the UEFA Champions League qualifying phase due to COVID-19-related issues.

• The literal interpretation of Annex I.1.2 leaves no doubt that the CEDB is the only competent body to render a decision in the case at hand.

• Annex I to the UCLR are “special rules applicable to the qualifying phase and play-offs due to COVID-19”. In addition, Annex I expressly provides that “[i]f there is any discrepancy between the rules of this Annex and the provisions to be found in the present regulations or in any other sets of rules adopted by the Executive Committee, the rules below prevail”. In the case at hand there is a discrepancy between Annex I.2.1(2) to the UCLR with the other provisions. Thus, the rules in the Annex to the UCLR must prevail.

• The supremacy of Annex I to the UCLR also follows from the purpose of the rules. The latter provide for uniform provisions governing the legal relationship between the

(operative part of 4 September 2020)

various participants in the UEFA Champions League and, therefore, must trump more general provisions contained in other rules and regulations of UEFA.

• When enacting the Annex I to the UCLR, the UEFA was perfectly aware that the matters covered by it would be of an urgent nature in light of the tightly scheduled qualifying programme. Nevertheless, UEFA willingly and purposefully decided not to confer jurisdiction to the Appeals Body. This was a deliberate decision of UEFA and the latter must be held to it. The Appellant further submits that its view is further backed by the fact that Annex I to the UCLR makes no reference to the general rules, in particular Article 29, 30 of the UEFA DR.

• Finally, the Appellant states that “interpreted systematically, the purpose of Annex I is to define the rules governing the relation between the various participants in 2020/2021 UCL ‘qualifying phase and play-offs’ during the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, and in particular: ‘venue and country restrictions imposed by the relevant national/local authorities (pt. I.1), testing and player eligibility (pt. I.2), potential rescheduling of matches (pt. I.3) and specific rules aimed at reducing the deadlines for protests and appeals (pt. I.4).’ Moreover, the charge against the Appellant rests exclusively on Annex I.2.1. As such, it is logical, if not natural, that UEFA should have first rendered to the terms of Annex I rather than seek rules with a more general purpose, as the UEFA DR”.

iii. Liability of KÍ Klaksvík

39. The Appellant submits that it is not liable for that the Match could not take place. Instead, the Appellant finds that it is KÍ Klaksvík that should be held responsible. According to the Annex I to the UCLR it was KÍ Klaksvík’s obligation to inform UEFA about any mandatory testing to be conducted by the Faroese health authorities upon arrival. This follows from Annex I.1.1 to the UCLR. KÍ Klaksvík. It was KÍ Klaksvík’s failure to do so, which rendered it impossible for the Mach to be played.

(a) Annex I.1.1 to the UCLR provides that clubs participating in the championship must provide UEFA in writing with information on travel restrictions between countries two days prior to the relevant match. Although COVID-19 testing for everyone upon arrival was mandatory in the Faroe Islands as of 27 June 2020 (including a mandatory 14-day quarantine for persons testing positive for COVID-19), KÍ Klaksvík decided not provide UFEA with this information on travel restriction.

(b) As a consequence of KÍ Klaksvík’s failure to provide the required information relating to the mandatory testing and the mandatory 14-day quarantine in case of a positive COVID- 19 test, UEFA did not include such information in Enclosure I to Annex I, which provides all travel restrictions for away teams participating in UEFA club competitions.

(c) Contrary to KÍ Klaksvík, clubs from other countries did provide the above information. Examples can be found in Enclosure I to Annex I regarding such travel restrictions for teams travelling to, e.g., Greece or Iceland.

(operative part of 4 September 2020)

(d) UEFA provided the Appellant with the information in relation to mandatory testing upon arrival in the Faroe Islands only on 19 August 2020, i.e. on the date of the Match when the First Delegation was already detained in quarantine.

(e) Furthermore, on 26 August 2020, UEFA sent a new Enclosure 2 to Annex I to the Appellant, informing it now that mandatory testing is required for all teams and officials entering the Faroe Islands. However, this new Enclosure 2 containing the comprehensive information on travel restrictions was only provided after the Appellant had filed a request for provisional measures with the CAS on 25 August 2020.

(f) Due to its failure to provide the required information to UEFA in a timely manner pursuant to Annex I.1.1 to the UCLR, KÍ Klaksvík must be declared by the competent UEFA bodies to have forfeited the Match and therefore be considered to have lost the Match 3-0 pursuant to Annex I.1.2 to the UCLR.

iv. Reinstatement of Appellant in the 2020/2021 UEFA Champions League

40. The Appellant further submits that it must be reintegrated into the 2020/2021 UEFA Champions League as a consequence of the unlawful Appealed Decision rendered by the Appeals Body.

(a) The Appellant accepts that it is impossible for UEFA to reintegrate the Appellant into the first or second qualification round of the 2020/2021 UEFA Champions League, since these qualification stages have already been played.

(b) Nevertheless, the UEFA has – according to the Appellant – the obligation to reincorporate the Appellant into future stages of the 2020/2021 UEFA Champions League, irrespective of the difficulties UEFA may face in this regard. It is certainly conceivable to reintegrate the Appellant into the third qualification round (“Q3”), the play-offs or the groups stages of the UEFA Champions League.

B. The First Respondent’s Position

41. In its Answer dated 2 September 2020, the First Respondent submitted the following prayers for relief:

“(a) Dismissing ŠK Slovan Bratislava’s appeal.

(b) Confirming the Decision under appeal.

(c) Ordering ŠK Slovan Bratislava to bear the costs of these proceedings and to pay UEFA a contribution towards the costs incurred by UEFA in connection with these proceedings.

42. UEFA’s Answer may, in essence, be summarised as follows:

(operative part of 4 September 2020)

i. Proper Notification

43. The First Respondent submits that Mr Kuran is and was the correct contact person of the Appellant for disciplinary matters. Thus, the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings dated 21 August 2020 and the decision to refer the case to the Appeals Body on 24 August 2020 was notified properly:

(a) On 10 August 2020, the Appellant’s Director of International Relations and Development, Mr Tomas Cho, requested UEFA, via email, to be added as UEFA’s main contact person in all correspondence with UEFA replacing Ms Helena Basistova. In the following email exchange with UEFA, Mr Cho confirmed that Mr Kuran shall remain listed as a contact person for Anti-Doping and Disciplinary matters. He further expressly requested that “if possible, communication in these areas could be sent to both of us”.

(b) UEFA submits that it was unaware of Mr Kuran being in quarantine. UEFA submits that the pre-departure testing results of the First Delegation on 16 August 2020 did not contain any testing for Mr Kuran. The information only included a test for Mr Cho, who travelled with the team to the Faroe Islands and was placed in 14-day quarantine together with the First Delegation.

(c) The above decisions were communicated to Mr Kuran and therefore entered into the sphere of control of the Appellant.

(d) In addition, the Appealed Decision of 24 August 2020 was immediately (re-)sent to Mr Cho after UEFA became aware that “it seems that the decision was sent to someone at Slovan Bratislava who is in quarantine and without access to emails”.

ii. No Lack of jurisdiction

44. The First Respondent submits that the Appeals Body was competent to render the Appealed Decision:

(a) Annex I to the UCLR provides specific rules in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, it does not exclude the application of the regulations provided in the UEFA DR, including the possibility to refer a case to the Appeals Body due to its urgent nature. Contrary to what the Appellant states, Annex I cannot be considered as lex specialis.

• Annex I.2.1 to the UCLR provides for a “default” first-instance for any decisions relating to the forfeiture of a match in case one or more players or officials of a team test positive for COVID-19.

• Similar provisions on the first-instance competence of the CEDB are contained in other UEFA regulations. For example, Article 4.07 of the UCLR states that “the UEFA General Secretary refers the case to the UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body, which decides without delay upon the admission in accordance with the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations”. With

(operative part of 4 September 2020)

respect to these other provisions, it is common UEFA practice that urgent matters can be referred to the Appeals Body based on the UEFA DR.

• Annex I to the UCLR does neither contain rules on jurisdiction nor rules on the division of responsibilities between the different disciplinary bodies of UEFA.

(b) Contrary to what the Appellant holds, there is no discrepancy between Annex I to the UCLR and the UEFA DR. The general procedural framework contained in the UEFA DR is and remains still applicable. It was never UEFA’s intention – when enacting Annex I to the UCLR – to abolish or amend its internal judicial system (with the CEDB as the first instance and the Appeals Body as the second instance).

• Annex I to the UCLR addresses complex questions regarding the staging of UEFA club competitions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The urgency of issues relating to positive COVID-19 tests arises from the fact that quick solutions are required to react to unforeseen complications.

• Accordingly, the rescheduling of matches requires fast decisions to comply with the deadlines set by UEFA in Annex I.3 to the UCLR.

• To abolish or amend procedural rules in the UEFA DR that are key to cope with urgent disputes is illogical and contrary to the objective pursued by UEFA.

iii. No Liability of KÍ Klaksvík

45. UEFA objects to the Appellant’s view that KÍ Klaksvík should be held responsible for forfeiting the Match.

(a) KÍ Klaksvík provided UEFA with the truthful and correct information that Faroese borders are open for all persons travelling from Slovakia and that there is no mandatory quarantine for travellers entering the country. The Second Respondent, therefore, fully complied with the requirements set out in Annex I.1.1 to the UCLR.

• One must distinguish between travel restrictions and travel conditions. Travel restrictions are referred to in Annex I.1.1 to the UCLR. They include – as expressly mentioned therein – “border closures” and “quarantine requirements”.

• Mandatory COVID-19 testing at arrival or mandatory quarantine in case of a positive COVID-19 test result do not qualify as “travel restriction”. They are travel conditions, since they do not impact on persons testing negative for COVID-19.

• The need to differentiate between travel restrictions, on the one hand, and travel conditions, on the other hand, clearly follows from UEFA’s email to the Appellant of 26 August 2020. The email reads as follows:

(operative part of 4 September 2020)

“We have attached a list of travel restrictions (enclosure 2 ‘List of borders and mandatory quarantine restrictions’) […]

o Border restrictions between specific countries;

o Mandatory quarantine requirements for visiting teams in the host’s country;

o Mandatory quarantine requirements for visiting teams upon return to their country after their match

Additionally, we have included information on travelling conditions with regards to testing as follows:

o Pre-departure negative test certificate requirements for visiting teams in the host’s country

o Testing requirements in the host’s country for visiting teams upon arrival and own teams upon return”.

(b) Furthermore, a home team can only be held responsible for the forfeiture of a match under Annex I.1.2 to the UCLR if “it can be proven that the consequences of the home team not providing specific travel restrictions information is that ‘the match cannot take place’”. In the case at hand, the only reason for the Match not taking place were the positive COVID-19 testing results of the First and the Second Delegation. Consequently, it was the Appellant’s responsibility that the Match did not take place in accordance with Annex I.2.1 to the UCLR.

iv. Reinstatement of Appellant in the 2020/2021 UEFA Champions League

46. In any event, UEFA is of the view that the Appellant cannot be reintegrated into the 2020/2021 UEFA Champions League, because this is simply impossible, both for legal and sporting reasons:

(a) The draws for both the UEFA Champions League qualification round Q3 and the play-offs already took place on 31 August 2020 respectively 1 September 2020. The reintegration of a team at a later stage of the competition would distort the entire competition and is absolutely impossible from a calendar perspective.

(b) Legally, the reintegration of the Appellant severely impacts on the rights of the other participants of the competition. Accordingly, all participants whose rights could be affected by the Appellant’s reinstatement must participate as a party to the proceedings at hand. The Appellant failed to direct it appeal against the other clubs participating in the Q3 and playoff stage as well the clubs that have already qualified for the group stage of the 2020/2021 UEFA Champions League. As a consequence, the Sole Arbitrator is precluded from taking any decision on the reinstatement of the Appellant in the case at hand.

(operative part of 4 September 2020)

C. The Second Respondent’s Position

47. The Second Respondent’s submissions may, in essence, be summarised as follows:

(a) KÍ Klaksvík has not taken part in the disciplinary proceedings resulting in the Appealed Decision. It has further never been involved in any other disciplinary proceedings of UEFA regarding the Match or the match between BSC Young Boys and KÍ Klaksvík.

(b) KÍ Klaksvík cannot be held liable for any wrongdoing in relation to the Match. It fully complied with the rules and regulations of UEFA. It is therefore not responsible for the Match not being played.