CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10550 — AZ Alkmaar v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)

"AZ Alkmaar" · CAS set aside UEFA's €40,000 fine on AZ Alkmaar, finding the club was not negligent in organising post-match security.

What happened in AZ Alkmaar

On 5 October 2023, AZ Alkmaar hosted Legia Warszawa in a UEFA Europa Conference League group stage match. Before kick-off, Legia fans stormed turnstiles in a coordinated attack, injuring police officers. After the match, local authorities ordered a staggered stadium exit. During that procedure, the Legia delegation was divided between those already on the team bus and those still inside the stadium. An altercation ensued involving Legia players, the club's chairman, AZ security staff, and riot police; one AZ security officer suffered a suspected broken arm and two Legia players were arrested. UEFA's Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) fined AZ Alkmaar €40,000 for failing to ensure the safety of the visiting team under Article 16(1) UEFA DR and Article 23.01 UEFA SSR. The UEFA Appeals Body confirmed that decision on 5 February 2024. AZ appealed to CAS. The Panel found that AZ had demonstrated absence of negligence through its pre-match Local Agreement with Alkmaar authorities, proactive coordination with police and UEFA, and positive assessments by UEFA officials. UEFA failed to prove specific negligence once the burden shifted. The Panel also found no breach of Article 23.01 SSR. The appeal was upheld and the Appealed Decision set aside. The case matters because it clarifies that Article 16(1) UEFA DR creates a rebuttable presumption, not strict liability, and that active misconduct by the visiting team is a relevant mitigating circumstance.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10550

On 13 December 2023, the UEFA CEDB fined AZ Alkmaar €40,000 for violating Article 16(1) UEFA DR in conjunction with Articles 8 and 23.01 UEFA SSR following post-match altercations at the AZ–Legia Warszawa Europa Conference League match on 5 October 2023. AZ appealed; on 5 February 2024 the UEFA Appeals Body rejected the appeal, confirmed the CEDB Decision, and ordered AZ to pay €1,000 in proceedings costs. On 6 May 2024 AZ filed a Statement of Appeal at CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code and Article 62 of the UEFA Statutes, requesting the Appealed Decision be set aside and, subsidiarily, that the fine be replaced by a warning. UEFA cross-requested rejection of the appeal and a contribution of at least CHF 30,000 toward its costs. A hearing was held by videoconference on 15 October 2024.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10550

• Article 16(1) UEFA DR creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence once an order-and-security incident is established, but does not amount to strict liability; the host club may discharge liability by proving absence of negligence in the organisation of the match.
• The division of the visiting team during a stadium exit procedure does not, per se, constitute an order-and-security incident within the meaning of Article 16(1) UEFA DR.
• Active misconduct by members of the visiting team — including assaults on police and security personnel and non-compliance with agreed protocols — is a relevant circumstance when assessing whether the host club was negligent in the organisation of the match.
• Once the host club adduces sufficient evidence of absence of negligence, the burden shifts to UEFA to prove specific negligence; UEFA's failure to identify or evidence such negligence is fatal to its case.
• Article 23.01 UEFA SSR requires the match organiser to 'seek the cooperation' of local police, an obligation satisfied by demonstrating proactive coordination with authorities before, during, and after the match.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel first confirmed that an incident within Article 16(1) UEFA DR had occurred — specifically the pushing and pulling of Legia's chairman by police and the broader altercation resulting in an injured AZ security officer and two Legia players being arrested. This triggered the presumption of negligence against AZ. The Panel then assessed whether AZ had rebutted that presumption. It gave weight to the Local Triangle Memo and Police Chief Addendum (not considered by the EDIs), UEFA officials' own reports praising match organisation as 'well prepared' and police performance as 'excellent', the pre-existing 'Local Agreement for Football and Safety Alkmaar', and evidence of proactive multi-party coordination. The Panel rejected AZ's argument that police orders alone discharged liability, but accepted that the visiting team's active misconduct — storming turnstiles, assaulting officers, failing to respond to communications — was a relevant mitigating factor. Once AZ shifted the burden, UEFA failed to identify specific negligence causing the incident. On Article 23.01 SSR, the Panel applied the plain wording ('seek the cooperation') and found it satisfied by the documented police presence and coordination. Arguments that the lockdown itself was negligent were rejected for lack of evidence that it created a security threat.

Why AZ Alkmaar matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies the precise nature of the liability regime under Article 16(1) UEFA DR: it is a rebuttable presumption, not strict liability, and the phrase 'not been negligent in any way' sets a high but not absolute standard. The Panel's acceptance that visiting-team misconduct is a relevant factor when assessing host-club negligence, and its plain-text reading of Article 23.01 SSR's 'seek' obligation, provide important guidance for clubs defending post-match security incidents where third-party conduct — including police action — contributed to the disorder.

Frequently asked questions about AZ Alkmaar

Why did CAS overturn the UEFA fine on AZ Alkmaar for the Legia Warszawa post-match incident?

CAS found that AZ Alkmaar had rebutted the presumption of negligence under Article 16(1) UEFA DR by demonstrating proactive coordination with local authorities through the 'Local Agreement for Football and Safety Alkmaar', positive assessments by UEFA officials who described the match as 'well prepared' and police performance as 'excellent', and evidence that Legia players and officials actively assaulted security personnel and failed to comply with agreed protocols. Once AZ shifted the burden, UEFA could not identify specific negligence that caused the incident, so the €40,000 fine was set aside.

Does Article 16(1) UEFA DR impose strict liability on host clubs for post-match security incidents?

No. The CAS Panel confirmed that Article 16(1) UEFA DR creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence once an order-and-security incident is established, but it does not amount to strict liability. A host club can discharge liability by proving absence of negligence in the organisation of the match, even though the standard — 'not been negligent in any way' — is described as high.

Can a host club avoid UEFA disciplinary liability when the incident was caused or worsened by police orders it was legally required to follow?

Not automatically. The Panel held that the fact an incident results from police orders or actions does not, per se, discharge the host club's burden of proving absence of negligence under Article 16(1) UEFA DR. However, where the club can show it coordinated properly with authorities and the visiting team's own misconduct contributed materially to the incident, those circumstances are relevant to the negligence assessment and can ultimately shift the burden back to UEFA.

What does Article 23.01 UEFA SSR actually require of a home club regarding visiting team safety?

Article 23.01 UEFA SSR requires the match organiser to 'seek the cooperation of the local police to ensure the safety of the visiting team and officials at their hotel and when travelling to and from training and to and from the match.' The CAS Panel applied the plain wording and found the obligation satisfied where AZ had entered a formal pre-match agreement with local authorities, coordinated security strategy in advance, and ensured police presence around the Away Team bus and exit points on match day.

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.