CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2007/A/1217 — Feyenoord Rotterdam N.V. v. Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)

"Feyenoord" · CAS confirmed Feyenoord's disqualification from the UEFA Cup 2006/07 and CHF 100,000 fine under Article 6 strict liability for supporter misconduct.

Award date	20 April 2007
Panel	President: Mr Martin Schimke; Arbitrators: Mr Peter Leaver QC, Prof Luigi Fumagalli
Outcome	Appeal dismissed; UEFA Appeals Body decision of 25 January 2007 confirmed — Feyenoord disqualified from UEFA Cup 2006/07 and fined CHF 100,000; award rendered without costs except Court Office fee of CHF 500 retained by CAS; each party bears its own legal costs.
Provisions	Art. 6 para. 1 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations 2006 Art. 6 para. 2 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations 2006 Art. 14 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations 2006 Art. 17 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations 2006 Art. 18 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations 2006 Art. 14.1 UEFA Safety and Security Regulations Art. 33.2 lit. c UEFA Safety and Security Regulations Art. 52 UEFA Statutes Art. 62 para. 1 UEFA Statutes Art. 63 para. 2 UEFA Statutes Arts. 3.08 and 3.09 Competition Regulations for the UEFA Cup 2007 Art. R47 CAS Code Art. R58 CAS Code Art. R65.2 CAS Code Art. 60 et seq. Swiss Civil Code Art. 20 Swiss Obligations Code Art. 163 Swiss Obligations Code

What happened in Feyenoord

On 30 November 2006, Feyenoord played AS Nancy in the UEFA Cup group phase. Despite Feyenoord's pre-match warnings about ticketing risks and its special away ticketing system, thousands of Dutch supporters travelled to Nancy, causing riots in the city centre. French police, facing ongoing disorder, opened the ticket office and admitted supporters into sectors 14 and 15 adjacent to the official Feyenoord enclosure. During the match, supporters broke separation walls, threw seats at police and stewards, and in the 79th minute police deployed teargas, halting play for approximately 34 minutes. The UEFA Control & Disciplinary Body fined Feyenoord CHF 200,000 and imposed a suspended two-match behind-closed-doors order. UEFA appealed; the UEFA Appeals Body disqualified Feyenoord from the UEFA Cup 2006/07 and reduced the fine to CHF 100,000. Feyenoord appealed to CAS, arguing the troublemakers were not 'supporters' within Article 6, that mitigating circumstances applied, and that the sanction was disproportionate. CAS dismissed the appeal, confirming that Article 6 paragraph 1 imposes strict liability, that the term 'supporter' is deliberately undefined and covers any person a reasonable observer would identify as supporting the club, and that the sanction was proportionate given Feyenoord's record of fourteen disciplinary cases in five years.

Procedural history of CAS 2007/A/1217

On 7 December 2006, the UEFA Control & Disciplinary Body fined Feyenoord CHF 200,000 and imposed a suspended two-match behind-closed-doors order for the next UEFA home matches. UEFA appealed on 13 December 2006 seeking a tougher sanction; Feyenoord filed a cross-appeal on 11 January 2007 seeking acquittal. After a hearing in Nyon on 19 January 2007, the UEFA Appeals Body on 25 January 2007 partially upheld UEFA's appeal: it disqualified Feyenoord from the UEFA Cup 2006/07, reduced the fine to CHF 100,000, rejected Feyenoord's cross-appeal, ordered Feyenoord to contact AS Nancy regarding damages, mandated a Disciplinary Inspector investigation, and allocated costs of CHF 8,000 to Feyenoord and CHF 2,000 to UEFA. Feyenoord filed its CAS statement of appeal on 26 January 2007, the same day the decision was notified. The CAS hearing was held in Lausanne on 8 February 2007.

Key holdings in CAS 2007/A/1217

Article 6 paragraph 1 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations imposes strict liability on clubs for the conduct of their supporters, regardless of the club's fault, negligence, or preventive measures taken.
The term 'supporter' in Article 6 paragraph 1 is deliberately undefined and covers any individual whose behaviour would lead a reasonable and objective observer to conclude that he or she was a supporter of that club, irrespective of nationality, residence, or ticket purchase method.
The distinction between 'official' and 'unofficial' supporters is not a legitimate distinction under the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, and no such provision exists or could easily be drafted.
Mitigating circumstances, including pre-match warnings and special ticketing systems, are irrelevant to liability under Article 6 paragraph 1 strict liability, though they may be relevant to sanctions imposed on the host club under Article 6 paragraph 2.
Disqualification from the UEFA Cup 2006/07 combined with a CHF 100,000 fine was proportionate given the gravity of the incidents and Feyenoord's record of fourteen disciplinary cases (twelve supporter-related) in five years.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel applied Article 6 paragraph 1 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations as a strict liability rule, relying heavily on the reasoning in PSV Eindhoven v. UEFA (CAS 2002/A/423), which confirmed the provision's validity under Swiss law including Articles 20 and 163 of the Swiss Obligations Code. The Panel rejected Feyenoord's official/unofficial supporter distinction, noting that when asked to draft an alternative provision, Feyenoord's representatives could not do so, confirming UEFA's deliberate policy of leaving 'supporter' undefined. The Panel held that behaviour and location in the stadium are the key criteria for identifying supporters. It dismissed arguments about police failures and ticket control breaches as relevant only to AS Nancy's liability under Article 6 paragraph 2, not to Feyenoord's strict liability under paragraph 1. On proportionality, the Panel acknowledged economic hardship but found no evidence of lasting damage to a club of Feyenoord's stature, emphasised the need to eradicate hooliganism, noted fourteen prior disciplinary cases as an aggravating factor under Article 18, and concluded that disqualification was the only sanction fit for purpose since a behind-closed-doors match would penalise the opposing team rather than Feyenoord's supporters.

Why Feyenoord matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award is a leading CAS authority on the scope of strict liability under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations. It definitively rejected the official/unofficial supporter distinction, established that 'supporter' is assessed by the reasonable observer standard based on behaviour and stadium location, and confirmed that preventive measures by a visiting club are irrelevant to liability. The award also reinforced that disqualification from a competition is a proportionate sanction for serious and repeated hooliganism, cementing UEFA's deterrence-based disciplinary framework.

Decision: Appeal dismissed; UEFA Appeals Body decision of 25 January 2007 confirmed — Feyenoord disqualified from UEFA Cup 2006/07 and fined CHF 100,000; award rendered without costs except Court Office fee of CHF 500 retained by CAS; each party bears its own legal costs.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2005/C/976 & 986, FIFA & WADA PSV Eindhoven v/ UEFA, CAS 2002/A/423 Football Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina v/ UEFA, UEFA Appeals Body, 23 May 2003 Hipperdinger v/ ATP Tour, Inc. CAS 2004/A/690 Squizzato v/ FINA CAS 2005/A/830

Frequently asked questions about Feyenoord

Did Feyenoord escape liability because the French police let supporters in without consulting the club?

No. The Panel held that Article 6 paragraph 1 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations imposes strict liability on Feyenoord regardless of the police's decision to open the ticket office without consulting Feyenoord's representatives. The police's conduct was relevant only to any sanction AS Nancy might face under Article 6 paragraph 2 as the host club, not to Feyenoord's liability as the visiting club.

Can a club avoid UEFA strict liability by arguing that troublemakers were 'unofficial' supporters who did not buy tickets through the club's system?

No. The Panel in Feyenoord v. UEFA confirmed that the term 'supporter' in Article 6 paragraph 1 is deliberately undefined and covers any person a reasonable and objective observer would identify as supporting the club, based on behaviour and location in the stadium. There is no UEFA provision distinguishing official from unofficial supporters, and the Panel found no workable definition could be drafted.

Was Feyenoord's disqualification from the UEFA Cup 2006/07 considered proportionate despite the economic loss involved?

Yes. The Panel acknowledged the economic impact of disqualification, including loss of broadcasting fees and ticket revenues, but found no evidence of lasting damage to a club of Feyenoord's stature. Given the gravity of the incidents — including breaking separation walls, throwing seats, and a 34-minute teargas-induced stoppage — and Feyenoord's record of fourteen disciplinary cases in five years (twelve supporter-related), the Panel confirmed the disqualification and CHF 100,000 fine as proportionate.

What is the legal basis for UEFA's strict liability rule for supporter conduct and has CAS confirmed its validity under Swiss law?

Article 6 paragraph 1 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations is the basis, and CAS confirmed its validity in PSV Eindhoven v. UEFA (CAS 2002/A/423), cited and applied in Feyenoord. The provision was held not to be contrary to Article 20 of the Swiss Obligations Code, with the Panel noting that Article 72 paragraph 1 of the Swiss Civil Code allows associations to expel members without giving reasons, making it consistent for associations to sanction members under strict liability.

Go deeper than the digest

Ask LexXi how this award has been applied since, compare it with related jurisprudence across 14,200+ indexed FIFA & CAS documents, and get answers with verified citations.

Ask LexXi about Feyenoord — free

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.