Circumstances of the case

It was reported by the UEFA match delegate that the KKS Lech Poznań supporters lit around 45 Bengal lights in the 47th minute of the match at the exact same time. The club stated that it is disappointed by the behavior of this small group of supporters, however underlining that the incident did not result in any significant disturbance of the game, such as game stoppage or reduction of the TV coverage and that none of these Bengal lights were thrown.

Legal framework Article 16 (2) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations.

Decision

The CEDB referred to the principle of strict liability enshrined in Art. 8 and 16 (2) DR, noting that the club did not put forward any arguments in the present case which would breach the accuracy of the official UEFA report which expressly refers to the setting off of fireworks and is presumed to be accurate under Article 45 DR. The club merely referred to circumstances like that no major incidents derived from the ignition of the fireworks that are irrelevant for the assessment of the incident. The CEDB further recalled the previous record of the club, the very high number of fireworks and the potential risks created by doing so at the occasion of an away-match, and though that a fine of €30’000 and banning the club from selling tickets it its supporters for the next UEFA competition away match is the appropriate sanction.

Chairman: Partl Thomas (AUT)

Vice-Chairman: Hansen Jim Stjerne (DEN)

Members:
Antenen Jacques (SUI)
Gea Tomás (AND)
Leal João (POR)
Lorenz Hans (GER)
Wolff Joël (LUX)

Circumstances of the case

As a reaction to the second goal scored by Celtic FC, the club’s players were celebrating at the corner flag in front of the North stand. Supporters of Linfield FC threw a plastic bottle and a cigarette lighter onto the pitch without hitting any player. In numerous occasions during the match, Linfield FC supporters threw items such as coins and plastic bottles towards the player, some of the items hitting the respective players. In the 73rd minute, a Linfield FC supporter jumped from the stand to pitch level but was immediately caught and pushed back into the stand by stewards. The club in its statements referred to the intensive security measures it implemented in such a high risk match, pointing to the fact that most of the incidents were a reaction to previous provocations by Celtic FC players.

Legal Framework Article 16 (2) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations.

Decision

With regard to the throwing of objects, the CEDB noted that a large number of object were thrown onto the field of play on several occasions. In particular, when a specific Celtic FC player wanted to take a corner kick during the match, the club´s supporters threw a large number of objects towards him, some of them according to the UEFA security officer hitting the player. The question as if those objects hit the player is irrelevant when assessing the responsibility of the club for the misconduct contemplated in Article 16 (2) (b) DR. The same stands as for the arguments referring to a previous provocation of the Celtic FC player, as well as for the pitch invasion which was admitted by the club. In view of the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences committed and the club’s previous record, the CEDB decided to order the partial closure of the Linfield FC Stadium during the next UEFA competition match in which Linfield FC would play as the host club, and, in particular Linfield FC shall closed South stand lower sector I of the stadium. In addition, the club is fined €10’000.

Chairman: Partl Thomas (AUT)

Vice-Chairmen:
Berzi Sándor (HUN)
Hansen Jim Stjerne (DEN)

Members: Gea Tomás (AND)
Leal João (POR)
Řepka Rudolf (CZE)
Wolff Joël (LUX)

Circumstances of the case

Several pyrotechnical devices were set off by AS Monaco supporters during the match, some of which with smoke development. Also, the AS Monaco players Valère Germain and Benjamin Mendy who were picked for a doping control, did not directly go to the DC room but went to their dressing room instead. The club in its statements argues that Valère Germain doesn´t speak English and could therefore not understand immediately what the assistant doping control officer told him. Regarding the player Mendy Benjamin, he had to leave the field of play at the 55th minute due to an injury. The player got the treatment immediately in the dressing room and he was only aware about the doping control after he was told when he got out of the “cold bath”.

Legal framework Article 16 (2) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, Article 6 of the UEFA Anti-Doping Regulations

Decision

The CEDB underlined that it is of utmost importance in order to ensure the functioning and efficiency of the UEFA anti-doping programme that clubs respect and follow the regulations and directives set out by UEFA and act diligently when implementing such regulations. With regard to Mr. Germain, the CEDB deems that the above arguments put forward by the club are not sufficient to mitigate the fact that the player did not report to the doping control station immediately after the match, stating that understanding the language it is normally not necessary when approached by someone with a bib containing the wording “doping” on it. Regarding Mr. Mendy, the CEDB noted that the player was injured during the match and was already inside the dressing room when the draw took place. Hence, the CEDB deems that here the responsibility laid on the side of the club who was not able to properly inform the player in a timely manner. Thus, the club bears the responsibility over the incident. Overall, the CEDB decides to fine Mr. Germain € 5´000. In addition, the club is fined € 7´000 for its responsibility deriving from doping infringement and the improper conduct of its supporters.

Chairman: Partl Thomas (AUT)

Vice-Chairmen:
Berzi Sándor (HUN)
Hansen Jim Stjerne (DEN)

Members:
Antenen Jacques (SUI)
Gea Tomás (AND)
Leal João (POR)
Řepka Rudolf (CZE)

Circumstances of the case

It was reported by the UEFA match delegate that the Legia Warszawa supporters staged an antiUEFA protest about 30 minutes before kick-off, unfurling a banner making reference to the €35’000 fine imposed on the club by UEFA. As the teams entered the pitch, a large banner was displayed implying that UEFA are pigs, additionally holding up blow-up plastic pigs. As the teams entered the pitch, a large amount of flares were ignited on either side of the banner. It was impossible to count the number, but it was more than likely to be in excess of 50.

Legal framework Article 16 (2) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations

Decision

With regards to the banner, the CEDB takes this opportunity to recall, that it cannot allow football matches organized by UEFA to become forums for people who want to abuse the game’s popularity to publicize their political or religious opinions. The CEDB further recalled that the setting off fireworks is a serious offence because not only can it disrupt the orderly running of the match but also, and more importantly, it can endanger the physical integrity of the persons who are lighting the fireworks, other spectators, officials and even the players on the pitch. In view of the long previous record of the club and the very negative picture and attitude of both the club supporters and the club itself, who is not able or willing to face a dramatic situation relating to the attitude of its supporters and to accept to comply with the UEFA disciplinary measures imposed against it, the CEDB deems that a partial closure and a fine €50´000 shall be deemed as the adequate disciplinary measures.

Chairman: Partl Thomas (AUT)

Vice-Chairman: Berzi Sándor (HUN)

Member: Larumbe Beain Kepa (ESP)

Circumstances of the case

FC Viktoria Plzeň supporters blocked stairways in the North stand during the Match and a plastic cup was thrown onto the pitch by one of the club’s supporters in the North stand in the 78th minute of the Match. Also, the club’s player Krmencik Michal (the “Player”) was dismissed by the referee because he “hit with his arm using excessive force against the face of his opponent”. In addition, eight (8) yellow cards were issued to the Club’s players by the referee. In its statement, the club suggests that the throwing of objects was not serious and claims that the delegate’s report is confusing as regards the duration of the blocked stairways

Legal framework Article 16 (2) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, Article 6 of the UEFA Anti-Doping Regulations

Decision

Regarding the red card, the CEDB noted that hitting an opponent in the face is obviously very dangerous and that Player was clearly reckless in his actions, which constitutes an assault (Art. 15 (1) (e) DR) and decided to punish the player with a three-match suspension. With regard to the throwing of objects and the blocking of stairways the CEDB noted that the club did not provide any evidence which would proof the inaccuracy of the official reports and thought, also taking into account the improper conduct of the team, that a fine of €28’000 is the appropriate sanction.

Chairman: Partl Thomas (AUT)

Circumstances of the case

PFC Ludogorets 1945 supporters blocked the stairways and the emergency exit gate in ‘Sector A2-A3’ (behind the goal) throughout the Match. No effort was made by the club’s stewards to address the problem. Also, the club’s player Nascimento Da Costa Marcelo was dismissed by the referee for “violent conduct” after hitting an opponent. In addition, four yellow cards were issued to the club’s players by the referee. PFC Ludogorets 1945 stated that the incident involving the Player involved “no excessive force or brutality”, and argues that the offence should be considered only to be “rough play” or “unsporting behavior”. The club also provides a video of the incident.

Legal framework Article 15 (1) (e) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, Article 15 (4) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, Article 38 UEFA Safety and Security Regulations

Decision

The CEDB reviewed the video evidence and noted that the player hit an opponent on the head. This act is described in the referee’s report as “violent conduct”, and this report carries the presumption of accuracy. Further, the video provided by the club clearly shows the player hitting an opponent. Consequently, the player’s behaviour during the match constitutes assault under the terms of Art. 15 (1) (e) DR and needs to be punished accordingly, in the present case with a three match suspension. With regard to the blocking of stairways and the blocking of stairways, the CEDB deemed a fine of €13’250 to be appropriate.

Chairman: Partl Thomas (AUT)

Circumstances of the case

In the 51st minute of the match between VPS Vaasa and Brøndby IF on 20 July 2017, the player Jan Kliment “[w]ith ball not in playing distance kicked the legs of the opponent player with violence” and was shown a red card by the referee for “violent conduct”. In its statement, the club presented an explanation from the player, stating that “[a]s I tried to run towards their goal, the opponent grabbed and held me for 3 seconds – and in the attempt to speed up I held my arm out and he fell to the ground”.

Legal framework Article 15 (1) (e) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations

Decision

The CEDB noted that none of the evidence provided by the club successfully rebuts this presumption of accuracy stipulated in Art. 45 DR. Indeed, the statement from the player does not even address the kick to his opponent. Based on the referee’s report, this is a clear case of the player trying to physically harm his opponent. Consequently, the CEDB decided that player’s behaviour during the Match constituted assault under the terms of Article 15 (1) (e) DR and needs to be punished with a three match suspension.

Chairman: PArtl Thomas (AUT)