CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2013/A/3301 — FC Red Bull Salzburg v. UEFA, Arsenal London FC & Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü

"Red Bull Salzburg v. UEFA" · CAS dismissed Salzburg's protest against its UCL elimination, holding Fenerbahçe was eligible to play while its exclusion decision was stayed.

What happened in Red Bull Salzburg v. UEFA

FC Red Bull Salzburg was eliminated from the 2013/14 UEFA Champions League qualifying rounds after losing on aggregate to Fenerbahçe. Fenerbahçe had been excluded from UEFA competitions by the UEFA Appeals Body on 10 July 2013 for match-fixing, but that decision was stayed by CAS on 18 July 2013 pending appeal proceedings (CAS 2013/A/3256). Salzburg played and lost the second leg on 6 August 2013, then filed a protest arguing Fenerbahçe was ineligible. UEFA's Control & Disciplinary Body and Appeals Body both rejected the protest. The CAS award in CAS 2013/A/3256 ultimately confirmed Fenerbahçe's exclusion on 28 August 2013. Salzburg appealed to CAS, seeking to have the match declared a 3-0 forfeit and to be reinstated in the UCL 2013/14. CAS dismissed the appeal, confirming that Fenerbahçe was fully eligible to play while the stay was in force, that the final award confirming exclusion had no retroactive effect on eligibility during the stay period, and that neither Article 50.1(a) nor 50.1(e) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations supported the protest. The case is significant for establishing that a stay of execution preserves a club's eligibility for the duration of the stay, and that sporting results played under a valid stay cannot be retroactively invalidated.

Procedural history of CAS 2013/A/3301

On 22 June 2013, the UEFA Control & Disciplinary Body excluded Fenerbahçe from the next three UEFA competitions for match-fixing. On 10 July 2013, the UEFA Appeals Body reduced this to the next two competitions. On 18 July 2013, CAS stayed that decision in proceedings CAS 2013/A/3256. Salzburg played and lost to Fenerbahçe on 6 August 2013. On 7 August 2013, Salzburg filed a protest under Articles 50.1(a) and 50.1(e) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations. On 9 August 2013, the C&D Body declared the protest inadmissible. On 16 August 2013, the UEFA Appeals Body rejected Salzburg's appeal and confirmed the protest was unfounded, ordering Salzburg to bear costs of €1,000. On 28 August 2013, CAS confirmed Fenerbahçe's exclusion in CAS 2013/A/3256. On 20 August 2013, Salzburg filed its CAS appeal against both UEFA decisions, seeking reinstatement in the UCL 2013/14.

Key holdings in CAS 2013/A/3301

• A stay of execution of a UEFA exclusion decision renders the excluded club fully eligible to compete for the duration of the stay, and the club's participation in matches during that period is lawful.
• The final CAS award confirming an exclusion decision does not have retroactive effect on the stay previously granted; sporting results achieved during the stay period are maintained.
• Article 50.1(a) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations applies only to the ineligibility of individual players, not to the ineligibility of a team as a whole, and cannot be invoked on the basis of a team-level sanction.
• Article 50.1(e) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations covers incidents directly affecting the conduct of the match on the pitch and does not extend to administrative factors such as a team playing under a disciplinary sanction.
• Arsenal lacked standing to be sued (légitimation passive) in the protest proceedings because the disputed right — the declaration of a forfeit against Fenerbahçe — did not personally oblige Arsenal.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel focused its analysis on the legal effect of the stay granted on 18 July 2013. It reasoned that a stay of execution suspends the operative effect of the underlying decision, meaning Fenerbahçe was not excluded and therefore retained full eligibility to compete. The Panel rejected Salzburg's argument that the stay merely required postponement of matches, finding no legal basis for that position. It also rejected the retroactivity argument, reasoning that if a final award confirming exclusion could retroactively invalidate eligibility during the stay period, competition organisers and participants would face complete unpredictability about the validity of results — an outcome contrary to the very purpose of a stay, which is to safeguard the proper functioning of the competition. The Panel applied Swiss law principles of statutory interpretation, starting from the wording of Articles 50.1(a) and 50.1(e) DR, and concluded that neither provision covered the situation at hand: Article 50.1(a) addresses individual player ineligibility, not team-level sanctions; Article 50.1(e) covers on-pitch incidents affecting match conduct, not administrative sanctions. The Panel also narrowed the scope of the dispute, holding that reinstatement and questions about the propriety of the stay were outside the protest proceedings and not for this Panel to decide.

Why Red Bull Salzburg v. UEFA matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award establishes a clear principle in CAS jurisprudence that a stay of execution of a competition exclusion decision preserves the excluded club's full eligibility for the duration of the stay, and that the subsequent confirmation of the exclusion on the merits has no retroactive effect on results achieved during that period. The Panel also clarified the narrow scope of protest grounds under Articles 50.1(a) and 50.1(e) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, and noted the absence of clearly defined UEFA rules on reinstatement of clubs displaced by excluded competitors — warmly inviting UEFA to address this gap.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2013/A/3256, Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü v. UEFA CAS 2008/A/1673 CAS 2009/A/1810 CAS 2009/A/1811

Frequently asked questions about Red Bull Salzburg v. UEFA

Did CAS rule that Fenerbahçe was eligible to play against Red Bull Salzburg in the 2013/14 UCL qualifying round?

Yes. The Panel held that because the UEFA Appeals Body decision excluding Fenerbahçe was stayed by CAS on 18 July 2013, Fenerbahçe was not excluded and therefore fully eligible to play the matches on 31 July and 6 August 2013. The stay suspended the operative effect of the exclusion decision for its entire duration.

Did the CAS award confirming Fenerbahçe's exclusion on 28 August 2013 retroactively make Fenerbahçe ineligible for the matches it played against Salzburg?

No. The Panel expressly rejected retroactivity, reasoning that if a final award confirming exclusion could retroactively invalidate eligibility during the stay period, it would create complete unpredictability for competition organisers and participants — contrary to the very purpose of a stay. Sporting results achieved during a valid stay are maintained as a general principle of sports law.

Why did Salzburg's protest under Article 50.1(a) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations fail in the Red Bull Salzburg v. UEFA case?

The Panel held that Article 50.1(a) applies only to the ineligibility of individual players — chiefly those suspended on disciplinary grounds — and cannot be extended to cover the ineligibility of a team as a whole. A team's ineligibility does not imply that its individual players are ineligible, since those players could be transferred and lawfully play for another team in the same competition.

Was Arsenal properly included as a respondent in CAS 2013/A/3301, and did it have standing to be sued?

The Panel held it had jurisdiction over Arsenal because Arsenal, by entering the UCL, expressly accepted CAS jurisdiction under Article 2.04 of the UCL Regulations. However, Arsenal was found to lack standing to be sued (légitimation passive) under Swiss law because the disputed right — a declaration that Fenerbahçe forfeited the match — did not personally oblige Arsenal, which was in no different position than any other UCL participant.

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.