CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/10223 — NK Olimpija Ljubljana v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)

"NK Olimpija Ljubljana" · CAS partially upheld NK Olimpija's appeal, annulling the €4,500 improper-conduct fine but confirming the €22,625 throwing-of-objects fine.

What happened in NK Olimpija Ljubljana

NK Olimpija Ljubljana, a Slovenian club, hosted Qarabağ FK on 24 August 2023 in the 2023/24 UEFA Europa League play-off round. During the match, supporters threw plastic cups onto the pitch at minutes 81 and 90+5, and four players received a total of five cautions. UEFA's Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) fined the club €22,625 for throwing objects and €4,500 for improper conduct of its team, totalling €27,125. The UEFA Appeals Body confirmed both fines on 30 November 2023. NK Olimpija appealed to CAS, contesting the number of cups thrown, their dangerousness, and the proportionality of the fines. At the CAS hearing, UEFA invoked the principle of lex mitior under the 2024 UEFA DR and waived the Article 15(4) sanction. The panel confirmed the €22,625 throwing-of-objects fine, finding that the club's video footage and witness statements (made five months after the match) were insufficient to rebut the presumed accuracy of the Official Reports under Article 45 UEFA DR. The panel annulled the €4,500 improper-conduct fine following UEFA's own waiver. The case matters because it reaffirms the strict-liability framework for supporter misconduct, the evidentiary weight of official UEFA reports, and the CAS standard that sanctions are only reviewable when 'evidently and grossly disproportionate.'

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/10223

On 28 September 2023, the CEDB fined NK Olimpija €22,625 for throwing of objects (Art. 16(2) UEFA DR) and €4,500 for improper conduct of its team (Art. 15(4) UEFA DR), totalling €27,125. The club declared its intention to appeal on 27 October 2023 and filed grounds on 1 November 2023. On 30 November 2023, the UEFA Appeals Body rejected the appeal and confirmed the CEDB decision, adding €1,000 in proceedings costs to be borne by the club. The Appealed Decision with grounds was notified on 15 December 2023. NK Olimpija filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 22 December 2023 and its Appeal Brief on 8 January 2024. UEFA filed its Answer on 11 March 2024. A hearing was held by videoconference on 1 October 2024. At the hearing, UEFA invoked lex mitior under the 2024 UEFA DR and waived the Article 15(4) sanction, narrowing the dispute to the Article 16(2) throwing-of-objects fine.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/10223

• Article 45 of the UEFA DR creates a rebuttable presumption of accuracy for official UEFA reports, shifting the burden of proof to the club to demonstrate inaccuracy.
• A club's video footage covering only a small portion of the pitch and witness statements made five months after the match are insufficient to rebut the presumed accuracy of the UEFA Match Delegate's Report.
• Plastic cups thrown by supporters constitute objects 'potentially endangering the physical integrity of others' under Article 16(2)(b) of the UEFA DR, irrespective of their size or weight.
• A disciplinary sanction imposed by a sports association may only be reviewed by CAS when it is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offence.'
• Recidivism within two years for order-and-security offences under Article 25(2) of the UEFA DR constitutes an aggravating circumstance justifying an increased fine.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel applied an adversarial burden-of-proof framework under Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code and CAS jurisprudence, requiring each party to prove the facts on which it relies. It treated Article 45 UEFA DR as a presumption of law that reverses the burden regarding the inaccuracy of official reports. The panel found the Referee's Report and the UEFA Match Delegate's Additional Report consistent rather than contradictory: the Delegate, with a different vantage point, supplemented rather than contradicted the Referee's account. The club's video evidence was dismissed as covering only a narrow angle of the pitch and failing to capture all sectors (C17–C22) from which cups were thrown. Witness statements were discredited because they were made over five months after the match and were contradicted by the club's own video footage. The panel rejected the argument that plastic cups are inherently harmless, noting that modern football has seen injuries from thrown cups. On proportionality, the panel applied the CAS standard that sanctions are only reviewable when 'evidently and grossly disproportionate,' found the graduated fine formula (€1,500 first cup, €750 second, €500 each further, plus 50% recidivism uplift and €500 per prior offence from the third) lawful and well-founded, and confirmed the €22,625 fine. The Article 15(4) fine was annulled solely because UEFA itself waived it under lex mitior.

Why NK Olimpija Ljubljana matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award reinforces the evidentiary primacy of official UEFA match reports under Article 45 UEFA DR and confirms that clubs bear a heavy burden to rebut their presumed accuracy. It also reaffirms the strict-liability principle for supporter misconduct and the CAS rule that disciplinary sanctions are only reviewable when 'evidently and grossly disproportionate.' The case further illustrates the application of lex mitior in UEFA disciplinary proceedings when regulations change between the first-instance decision and the CAS hearing.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2017/A/5336 CAS 2015/A/3909 CAS 2013/A/3139 CAS 2021/A/7736 CAS 2022/A/9078 CAS 2019/A/6239

Frequently asked questions about NK Olimpija Ljubljana

Why was NK Olimpija's fine for throwing plastic cups upheld even though no one was injured?

Article 16(2)(b) of the UEFA DR imposes strict liability for throwing objects that 'potentially endanger' others, regardless of whether injury actually occurs. The CAS panel held that plastic cups—especially those containing liquid—can become dangerous projectiles and that the provision applies irrespective of the size or weight of the object thrown. The absence of injury was therefore not a defence.

How did the CAS panel treat the conflict between the Referee's Report and the UEFA Match Delegate's Report on the number of cups?

The panel found no contradiction between the two reports. The Referee noted two cups at minute 81, while the Match Delegate specified five; the panel held that the Delegate, positioned differently, supplemented rather than contradicted the Referee. For the minute 90+5 incident, the club's video covered only a narrow angle of the pitch and could not capture all sectors C17–C22, so it was insufficient to rebut the Delegate's figure of approximately twenty cups under Article 45 UEFA DR.

Why was the €4,500 improper-conduct fine annulled by CAS in the NK Olimpija case?

At the CAS hearing, UEFA itself invoked the principle of lex mitior, noting that the 2024 edition of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (which entered into force on 2 June 2024) changed the relevant provisions of Article 15(4) in conjunction with Annex A.VIII. UEFA therefore waived its request for a sanction under Article 15(4), and the panel annulled the €4,500 fine accordingly.

What standard does CAS apply when reviewing the proportionality of a UEFA disciplinary fine?

The panel confirmed the established CAS line of authority that a disciplinary sanction imposed by a sports association may only be reviewed when it is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offence,' citing CAS 2019/A/6239, CAS 2013/A/3139, and CAS 2012/A/2762. Because the €22,625 fine followed UEFA's published graduated formula and reflected five prior recidivist offences within two years, the panel found it lawful and well-founded and declined to reduce it.

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.